NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
This just took place, and currently it's all speculations as to what happened, but indications are this could be a successful attack with the same incendiary devices as was found 2 weeks ago on similar cargo planes out of Lithuania.
If true, this is a dramatic escalation by Russia, and I'm completely dumbfounded as to what reason they'd want do this. Unlike their nuclear saber rattling, this is a direct attack, and will have real consequences
ATC comms and AVHerald. They were establishing on ILS about ~4 miles out, roughly 1.5 minutes from landing. They never finished the switch to tower, but they did ack the frequency switch, so likely something happened in that timeframe (usually within a span of about 10-15s). They were establishing on ILS which is usually automated (plane establishes, then pilots handfly the last 800-500ft of descent), so something funny happened. 3 of 4 survived the crash, so hopefully we'll have a better picture soon of what happened.
I'm going with extreme pilot negligence. They were at 196kt indicated at 3 miles. This is well inside the point at which they should be established and stable on glideslope. It looks to me like they tried to hotdog it in instead of going around. I'm guessing they deployed speedbrake in flight in an attempt to slow down alongside idle thrust (not flight idle) since they lost 20 knots in a mile, despite going to a 1000ft/min descent rate, and still failed to go around. They may have tried, but forgot speedbrake was out, and couldn't outclimb the problem. They had plenty of speed to do so.
Normal landing speed, especially with such a strong headwind (35kt) should be in the 135-145 indicated range, which should've happened quite a bit earlier
On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote: One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years? It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory.
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media, and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot any Russian diplomat attempting to negotiate Russia's surrender.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it was misrepresented all over the media and so it's not your fault.
Start here to see some clearer polling on where the Ukrainian people stand.
Presenting a subset of polling respondents as representative of the whole population is extremely misleading. If I had a question "are you sexually attracted to household furniture" and then asked the "yes" group if they'd fuck their couch then I bet I could reasonably make the claim that most of the Americans who were asked if they'd fuck their couch responded that they are couch fuckers.
On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote: One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years? It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory.
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 24 2024 09:41 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
I'm not trying to convince you, just trying to help you understand the reason. There was an investigation into war crimes by the Azov brigade and they came out clean. They were also essential in defending Mariupol. Their Nazi history is a serious issue, but Ukraine needs every soldier they can get. I'm sure even you can acknowledge that fact.
The same "investigators" that say Israel isn't committing war crimes. Can close both those cases I guess /s
The cruel irony that the same people insisting Ukraine's "revolution" is rational and should continue to be fought no matter the human cost based on the alternative of having a government beholden to Putin are totally supportive of USians willingly handing control of the most lethal military in the world over to someone they insist they KNOW collaborated with Putin as his useful idiot to overthrow US democracy and install himself as a dictator seems lost on everyone but me at this point.
Ok, so what do you propose? Ukraine gives up and lets Russia genocide them?
No. I think it's probably a good idea for both the US and Ukraine to do whatever is necessary for their country not to be run by a useful idiot for Putin.
That would mean not freely handing control of the most lethal military in the world over to a guy libs/Dems are sure is a useful idiot for Putin AND WILL IMMEDIATELY PRESSURE/FORCE UKRAINE TO CONCEDE. Maybe fight against the US being taken over by useful idiot for Putin comparably hard as they have/have expected from Ukrainians (who don't have the most lethal military in the world).
Or libs/Dems could just also tell Ukrainians like they are telling people like me in the US: "Sure, having a leader that's a useful idiot for Putin sucks, but it's better to have that than to have the consequences of refusing to accept that".
That would be another way for them to resolve the contradiction and probably what they ultimately will do if/when Ukraine negotiates negative peace, Russia is reluctantly welcomed back into trade with the West, and they remember how to look at Ukrainian revolutionaries like Dav1oN like they look at me.
You know your writing has become increasingly vague and obfuscating. Are you plotting an assassination or your own version of January 6 or encouraging others to do the same or what is going on here with 'do whatever is necessary'?
Is that what you deem necessary to prevent Ukraine/the US from being run by a useful idiot for Putin?
No.
See how easy it is to answer a question in a straight forward manner? (I have also given reasons why not in the past.) But here you are flipping the question back to me rather than answer directly. So what are you on about?
So Trump can force Ukraine to settle for negative peace. Then Ukrainians and USians can focus on winning their next elections to prevent their governments from being controlled by useful idiots for Putin in your opinion?
Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote: One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years? It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory.
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 24 2024 10:13 Luolis wrote: [quote] Ok, so what do you propose? Ukraine gives up and lets Russia genocide them?
No. I think it's probably a good idea for both the US and Ukraine to do whatever is necessary for their country not to be run by a useful idiot for Putin.
That would mean not freely handing control of the most lethal military in the world over to a guy libs/Dems are sure is a useful idiot for Putin AND WILL IMMEDIATELY PRESSURE/FORCE UKRAINE TO CONCEDE. Maybe fight against the US being taken over by useful idiot for Putin comparably hard as they have/have expected from Ukrainians (who don't have the most lethal military in the world).
Or libs/Dems could just also tell Ukrainians like they are telling people like me in the US: "Sure, having a leader that's a useful idiot for Putin sucks, but it's better to have that than to have the consequences of refusing to accept that".
That would be another way for them to resolve the contradiction and probably what they ultimately will do if/when Ukraine negotiates negative peace, Russia is reluctantly welcomed back into trade with the West, and they remember how to look at Ukrainian revolutionaries like Dav1oN like they look at me.
You know your writing has become increasingly vague and obfuscating. Are you plotting an assassination or your own version of January 6 or encouraging others to do the same or what is going on here with 'do whatever is necessary'?
Is that what you deem necessary to prevent Ukraine/the US from being run by a useful idiot for Putin?
No.
See how easy it is to answer a question in a straight forward manner? (I have also given reasons why not in the past.) But here you are flipping the question back to me rather than answer directly. So what are you on about?
So Trump can force Ukraine to settle for negative peace. Then Ukrainians and USians can focus on winning their next elections to prevent their governments from being controlled by useful idiots for Putin in your opinion?
Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote: One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years? It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory.
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 25 2024 15:28 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] No. I think it's probably a good idea for both the US and Ukraine to do whatever is necessary for their country not to be run by a useful idiot for Putin.
That would mean not freely handing control of the most lethal military in the world over to a guy libs/Dems are sure is a useful idiot for Putin AND WILL IMMEDIATELY PRESSURE/FORCE UKRAINE TO CONCEDE. Maybe fight against the US being taken over by useful idiot for Putin comparably hard as they have/have expected from Ukrainians (who don't have the most lethal military in the world).
Or libs/Dems could just also tell Ukrainians like they are telling people like me in the US: "Sure, having a leader that's a useful idiot for Putin sucks, but it's better to have that than to have the consequences of refusing to accept that".
That would be another way for them to resolve the contradiction and probably what they ultimately will do if/when Ukraine negotiates negative peace, Russia is reluctantly welcomed back into trade with the West, and they remember how to look at Ukrainian revolutionaries like Dav1oN like they look at me.
You know your writing has become increasingly vague and obfuscating. Are you plotting an assassination or your own version of January 6 or encouraging others to do the same or what is going on here with 'do whatever is necessary'?
Is that what you deem necessary to prevent Ukraine/the US from being run by a useful idiot for Putin?
No.
See how easy it is to answer a question in a straight forward manner? (I have also given reasons why not in the past.) But here you are flipping the question back to me rather than answer directly. So what are you on about?
So Trump can force Ukraine to settle for negative peace. Then Ukrainians and USians can focus on winning their next elections to prevent their governments from being controlled by useful idiots for Putin in your opinion?
Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
The entire conflict started because it turns out the Ukrainian public very much can do something about a president who starts unilaterally giving shit to Russia against the will of the people.
If you're unaware of that then you're probably in the wrong topic.
On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote: One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years? It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory.
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
You know your writing has become increasingly vague and obfuscating. Are you plotting an assassination or your own version of January 6 or encouraging others to do the same or what is going on here with 'do whatever is necessary'?
Is that what you deem necessary to prevent Ukraine/the US from being run by a useful idiot for Putin?
No.
See how easy it is to answer a question in a straight forward manner? (I have also given reasons why not in the past.) But here you are flipping the question back to me rather than answer directly. So what are you on about?
So Trump can force Ukraine to settle for negative peace. Then Ukrainians and USians can focus on winning their next elections to prevent their governments from being controlled by useful idiots for Putin in your opinion?
Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
The entire conflict started because it turns out the Ukrainian public very much can do something about a president who starts unilaterally giving shit to Russia against the will of the people.
If you're unaware of that then you're probably in the wrong topic.
So, you're suggesting they could violently overthrow Zelensky amid peace negotiations... good plan... /s
On November 21 2024 07:56 KwarK wrote: [quote] The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory.
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 25 2024 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Is that what you deem necessary to prevent Ukraine/the US from being run by a useful idiot for Putin?
No.
See how easy it is to answer a question in a straight forward manner? (I have also given reasons why not in the past.) But here you are flipping the question back to me rather than answer directly. So what are you on about?
So Trump can force Ukraine to settle for negative peace. Then Ukrainians and USians can focus on winning their next elections to prevent their governments from being controlled by useful idiots for Putin in your opinion?
Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
The entire conflict started because it turns out the Ukrainian public very much can do something about a president who starts unilaterally giving shit to Russia against the will of the people.
If you're unaware of that then you're probably in the wrong topic.
So, you're suggesting they could violently overthrow Zelensky amid peace negotiations... good plan... /s
No, I'm not suggesting that. This is your suggestion, you're the one coming up with this insanity, I'm the one poking holes in it. Don't try that reversal shit. I brought up the Maidan to point out that not only is your plan dumb on the face of it, a very mild version of it completely failed in recent memory in a way that you should be familiar with.
Your suggestion is that in the middle of a war Zelensky engage in secret negotiations with the enemy as part of an illegal and unconstitutional conspiracy to legitimize their seizure of part of the nation he serves. And that when this treason, and it would be treason, comes to light he'll simply declare that he's done a treason and the Ukrainian military and people will simply go "well, I guess we got treasoned" and all their motivations for fighting will stop. That's what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that that probably won't work. Maybe the Parliament will just say "no" and remove him from power. Maybe the people will. Maybe the military will. But randomly declaring that you've done a treason doesn't actually resolve the fundamentals of this conflict and you'd have to be a moron to think it would. All the Ukrainian families who have literally had their children stolen and "adopted out" in Russia without documentation aren't suddenly going to decide that they don't want them back.
Zelensky declaring that he's decided to give Ukraine to Russia doesn't actually carry any weight to Ukraine because it's not a presidential act, it's not within the power of the president, it'd be just a personal thing he felt like doing as an individual. There would be no obligation for anyone to go along with it.
Overall I rate your plan to end the Ukraine war 0/10 and you should feel bad.
Edit: "Why does Biden not simply declare that he's done a communism. If he let America know then the capitalist class would have to turn over the means of production to the workers. That's how the world works."
On November 21 2024 23:24 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 25 2024 17:31 Falling wrote: [quote] No.
See how easy it is to answer a question in a straight forward manner? (I have also given reasons why not in the past.) But here you are flipping the question back to me rather than answer directly. So what are you on about?
So Trump can force Ukraine to settle for negative peace. Then Ukrainians and USians can focus on winning their next elections to prevent their governments from being controlled by useful idiots for Putin in your opinion?
Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
The entire conflict started because it turns out the Ukrainian public very much can do something about a president who starts unilaterally giving shit to Russia against the will of the people.
If you're unaware of that then you're probably in the wrong topic.
So, you're suggesting they could violently overthrow Zelensky amid peace negotiations... good plan... /s
, I'm not suggesting that. This is your suggestion, you're the one coming up with this insanity, I'm the one poking holes in it. Don't try that reversal shit.
Your suggestion is that in the middle of a war Zelensky engage in secret negotiations with the enemy as part of an illegal and unconstitutional conspiracy to legitimize their seizure of part of the nation he serves. And that when this treason, and it would be treason, comes to light he'll simply declare that he's done a treason and the Ukrainian military and people will simply go "well, I guess we got treasoned" and all their motivations for fighting will stop. That's what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that that probably won't work. Maybe the Parliament will just say "no" and remove him from power. Maybe the people will. Maybe the military will. But randomly declaring that you've done a treason doesn't actually resolve the fundamentals of this conflict and you'd have to be a moron to think it would. All the Ukrainian families who have literally had their children stolen and "adopted out" in Russia without documentation aren't suddenly going to decide that they don't want them back.
Zelensky declaring that he's decided to give Ukraine to Russia doesn't actually carry any weight to Ukraine because it's not a presidential act, it's not within the power of the president, it'd be just a personal thing he felt like doing as an individual. There would be no obligation for anyone to go along with it.
Overall I rate your plan to end the Ukraine war 0/10 and you should feel bad
.
If you say so.
I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace functionally conceding land, Russia is slowly welcomed back into international trade, all while (optimistically speaking) the ~$500+ billion rebuilding contracts are negotiated between Russian and Western oligarchs funded with IMF style loans to Ukrainians that'll eventually get shafted with austerity to pay off the profits of said oligarchs we can revisit your ideas.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 25 2024 17:49 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] So Trump can force Ukraine to settle for negative peace. Then Ukrainians and USians can focus on winning their next elections to prevent their governments from being controlled by useful idiots for Putin in your opinion?
Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
The entire conflict started because it turns out the Ukrainian public very much can do something about a president who starts unilaterally giving shit to Russia against the will of the people.
If you're unaware of that then you're probably in the wrong topic.
So, you're suggesting they could violently overthrow Zelensky amid peace negotiations... good plan... /s
, I'm not suggesting that. This is your suggestion, you're the one coming up with this insanity, I'm the one poking holes in it. Don't try that reversal shit.
Your suggestion is that in the middle of a war Zelensky engage in secret negotiations with the enemy as part of an illegal and unconstitutional conspiracy to legitimize their seizure of part of the nation he serves. And that when this treason, and it would be treason, comes to light he'll simply declare that he's done a treason and the Ukrainian military and people will simply go "well, I guess we got treasoned" and all their motivations for fighting will stop. That's what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that that probably won't work. Maybe the Parliament will just say "no" and remove him from power. Maybe the people will. Maybe the military will. But randomly declaring that you've done a treason doesn't actually resolve the fundamentals of this conflict and you'd have to be a moron to think it would. All the Ukrainian families who have literally had their children stolen and "adopted out" in Russia without documentation aren't suddenly going to decide that they don't want them back.
Zelensky declaring that he's decided to give Ukraine to Russia doesn't actually carry any weight to Ukraine because it's not a presidential act, it's not within the power of the president, it'd be just a personal thing he felt like doing as an individual. There would be no obligation for anyone to go along with it.
Overall I rate your plan to end the Ukraine war 0/10 and you should feel bad
.
If you say so.
I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace functionally conceding land, Russia is slowly welcomed back into international trade, all while (optimistically speaking) the ~$500+ billion rebuilding contracts are negotiated between Russian and Western oligarchs funded with IMF style loans to Ukrainians that'll eventually get shafted with austerity to pay off the profits of said oligarchs we can revisit your ideas.
Your desperate need for everything to be some kind of internationalist IMF conspiracy to inflict austerity on the world is truly baffling and more than a little weird. You reach for this shit like a neo Nazi desperately trying to connect the dots between dentistry and feminism, but making even less sense. You should go back and read some of your posts out loud and try to work out how you go to this point.
Literally nothing going on here has anything to do with austerity. Russia has been an empire for hundreds of years. Some of their colonies attempted to break away. They're invading them.
But since you're making predictions, go ahead and describe this peace to us. What would Putin accept that Ukraine could give? Putin won't settle for just Crimea. He won't settle for just Crimea and the Donbas. He won't settle for just Crimea, the Donbas, and everything behind the current line of contact. Hell, he probably won't settle for Kherson thrown in too. He wants all that land, plus full disarmament of Ukraine, plus functional control of the foreign policy of Ukraine in preparation for full absorption back into Russia.
Predict the date in the next year by which Ukraine will give him that. Or, if you think that Ukraine won't give him that, predict the date by which Putin settles for less.
On November 22 2024 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 25 2024 23:33 KwarK wrote: [quote] Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
The entire conflict started because it turns out the Ukrainian public very much can do something about a president who starts unilaterally giving shit to Russia against the will of the people.
If you're unaware of that then you're probably in the wrong topic.
So, you're suggesting they could violently overthrow Zelensky amid peace negotiations... good plan... /s
, I'm not suggesting that. This is your suggestion, you're the one coming up with this insanity, I'm the one poking holes in it. Don't try that reversal shit.
Your suggestion is that in the middle of a war Zelensky engage in secret negotiations with the enemy as part of an illegal and unconstitutional conspiracy to legitimize their seizure of part of the nation he serves. And that when this treason, and it would be treason, comes to light he'll simply declare that he's done a treason and the Ukrainian military and people will simply go "well, I guess we got treasoned" and all their motivations for fighting will stop. That's what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that that probably won't work. Maybe the Parliament will just say "no" and remove him from power. Maybe the people will. Maybe the military will. But randomly declaring that you've done a treason doesn't actually resolve the fundamentals of this conflict and you'd have to be a moron to think it would. All the Ukrainian families who have literally had their children stolen and "adopted out" in Russia without documentation aren't suddenly going to decide that they don't want them back.
Zelensky declaring that he's decided to give Ukraine to Russia doesn't actually carry any weight to Ukraine because it's not a presidential act, it's not within the power of the president, it'd be just a personal thing he felt like doing as an individual. There would be no obligation for anyone to go along with it.
Overall I rate your plan to end the Ukraine war 0/10 and you should feel bad
.
If you say so.
I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace functionally conceding land, Russia is slowly welcomed back into international trade, all while (optimistically speaking) the ~$500+ billion rebuilding contracts are negotiated between Russian and Western oligarchs funded with IMF style loans to Ukrainians that'll eventually get shafted with austerity to pay off the profits of said oligarchs we can revisit your ideas.
Your desperate need for everything to be some kind of internationalist IMF conspiracy to inflict austerity on the world is truly baffling and more than a little weird. You reach for this shit like a neo Nazi desperately trying to connect the dots between dentistry and feminism, but making even less sense. You should go back and read some of your posts out loud and try to work out how you go to this point.
Literally nothing going on here has anything to do with austerity. Russia has been an empire for hundreds of years. Some of their colonies attempted to break away. They're invading them.
But since you're making predictions, go ahead and describe this peace to us. What would Putin accept that Ukraine could give? Putin won't settle for just Crimea. He won't settle for just Crimea and the Donbas. He won't settle for just Crimea, the Donbas, and everything behind the current line of contact. Hell, he probably won't settle for Kherson thrown in too. He wants all that land, plus full disarmament of Ukraine, plus functional control of the foreign policy of Ukraine in preparation for full absorption back into Russia.
Predict the date in the next year by which Ukraine will give him that. Or, if you think that Ukraine won't give him that, predict the date by which Putin settles for less.
It's possible the window is closed (or never existed as you insist) and Ukraine is doomed as a consequence of not effectively addressing the (in no particular order) #3, #4, and #5 reasons people oppose revolutions/support negotiations with oppressors
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc. [millions of these Ukrainians simply left]
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
Their "democracy" is measurably worse for it and the consequences of their apparent failure may very well be existential.
That said, I suspect we'll have a good sense within ~a year or two whether they are going to find terms for a negative peace or if Ukraine will be overrun entirely by Russia.
EDIT: I don't know how you think Ukraine is going to get rebuilt without massive infusions of IMF style lending that frequently leads to austerity for people of the receiving nation, but it seems we're done here for now.
On November 26 2024 10:06 KwarK wrote: [quote] Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 26 2024 00:59 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
The entire conflict started because it turns out the Ukrainian public very much can do something about a president who starts unilaterally giving shit to Russia against the will of the people.
If you're unaware of that then you're probably in the wrong topic.
So, you're suggesting they could violently overthrow Zelensky amid peace negotiations... good plan... /s
, I'm not suggesting that. This is your suggestion, you're the one coming up with this insanity, I'm the one poking holes in it. Don't try that reversal shit.
Your suggestion is that in the middle of a war Zelensky engage in secret negotiations with the enemy as part of an illegal and unconstitutional conspiracy to legitimize their seizure of part of the nation he serves. And that when this treason, and it would be treason, comes to light he'll simply declare that he's done a treason and the Ukrainian military and people will simply go "well, I guess we got treasoned" and all their motivations for fighting will stop. That's what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that that probably won't work. Maybe the Parliament will just say "no" and remove him from power. Maybe the people will. Maybe the military will. But randomly declaring that you've done a treason doesn't actually resolve the fundamentals of this conflict and you'd have to be a moron to think it would. All the Ukrainian families who have literally had their children stolen and "adopted out" in Russia without documentation aren't suddenly going to decide that they don't want them back.
Zelensky declaring that he's decided to give Ukraine to Russia doesn't actually carry any weight to Ukraine because it's not a presidential act, it's not within the power of the president, it'd be just a personal thing he felt like doing as an individual. There would be no obligation for anyone to go along with it.
Overall I rate your plan to end the Ukraine war 0/10 and you should feel bad
.
If you say so.
I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace functionally conceding land, Russia is slowly welcomed back into international trade, all while (optimistically speaking) the ~$500+ billion rebuilding contracts are negotiated between Russian and Western oligarchs funded with IMF style loans to Ukrainians that'll eventually get shafted with austerity to pay off the profits of said oligarchs we can revisit your ideas.
Your desperate need for everything to be some kind of internationalist IMF conspiracy to inflict austerity on the world is truly baffling and more than a little weird. You reach for this shit like a neo Nazi desperately trying to connect the dots between dentistry and feminism, but making even less sense. You should go back and read some of your posts out loud and try to work out how you go to this point.
Literally nothing going on here has anything to do with austerity. Russia has been an empire for hundreds of years. Some of their colonies attempted to break away. They're invading them.
But since you're making predictions, go ahead and describe this peace to us. What would Putin accept that Ukraine could give? Putin won't settle for just Crimea. He won't settle for just Crimea and the Donbas. He won't settle for just Crimea, the Donbas, and everything behind the current line of contact. Hell, he probably won't settle for Kherson thrown in too. He wants all that land, plus full disarmament of Ukraine, plus functional control of the foreign policy of Ukraine in preparation for full absorption back into Russia.
Predict the date in the next year by which Ukraine will give him that. Or, if you think that Ukraine won't give him that, predict the date by which Putin settles for less.
It's possible the window is closed (or never existed as you insist) and Ukraine is doomed as a consequence of not effectively addressing the (in no particular order) #3, #4, and #5 reasons people oppose revolutions/support negotiations with oppressors
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc. [millions of these Ukrainians simply left]
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
Their "democracy" is measurably worse for it and the consequences of their apparent failure may very well be existential.
That said, I suspect we'll have a good sense within ~a year or two whether they are going to find terms for a negative peace or if Ukraine will be overrun entirely by Russia.
Come on, give us something more concrete than this nonsense.
I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace
I suspect we'll have a good sense within ~a year or two whether they are going to find terms
When will the IMF have full control of Ukrainian rebuilding funds? 2 years?
It's also weird that you're so very antirevolutionary. You're very firmly in the bootlicking "better not to try" camp here in a way that is extremely contemptible. In your opinion not only should the Ukrainian people not confronted their corrupt president, you also believe they should have voluntarily submitted to the nearest foreign autocrat.
I'm foreign born, would you like to be my slave? Or do you extend your pro slavery beliefs only to giving away the freedom of others?
On November 26 2024 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't know how you think Ukraine is going to get rebuilt without massive infusions of IMF style lending that frequently leads to austerity for people of the receiving nation, but it seems we're done here for now.
Just to be clear, you think that it's the reconstruction loans, and not the devastating war, that results in austerity in a post war nation?
I'd have thought that the reason that there was less money to spend on luxury goods would have had something to do with needing to rebuild all that housing. You know, because of all the bombs.
And the lack of workers might have something to do with the people that died or fled.
And the debt payments might have something to do with the colossal war debts that were taken on during the war by the government.
And the lack of luxury good production might have something to do with the retooling of the economy during wartime to be a wartime economy.
But now I see that actually the bad guys here were the ones who were doing the rebuilding and that if the victim simply refused any rebuilding funds then there would be no austerity at all.
I suppose in a way Russia are saving the Ukrainians from austerity with their bombs. The IMF are the real villains here. If Gaza is lucky then nobody will reconstruct it and they'll avoid any kind of austerity.
On November 26 2024 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote: I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace functionally conceding land, Russia is slowly welcomed back into international trade, all while (optimistically speaking) the ~$500+ billion rebuilding contracts are negotiated between Russian and Western oligarchs funded with IMF style loans to Ukrainians that'll eventually get shafted with austerity to pay off the profits of said oligarchs we can revisit your ideas.
Theres no going back from this war in terms of a return to normal relations with Russia, we are going on day 1006 of a full scale war in Europe. Even if Trump manages a "peace plan" for Ukraine, (and lets say its not atrocious), The ties are cut between Russia and Europe. Worst case scenario for everyone would be if Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 represents the Japanese incursions and all out war in 1937 of China. We may have already entered a soft World War 3. I mean literal North Korean troops are now fighting with Russians against Ukraine alone.
Wild you think there will be any kind of rebuilding contracts.
From economic point of view, the country of ukraine is cooked. The devastation of the war, reconstruction / rebuilding cost, the money the ukraine government borrowed from the western powers, the lost of properties (land) ownership to foreign entities etc. will make it very difficult for the "post war" (whatever it means) ukraine to survive financially.
For comparison, the UK only fully repay the loan they took out during WW2 in 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan I am no financial expert, but if the ukraine situation have any resemblance to that of the UK in WW2, it is not looking good for ukraine.
On November 26 2024 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote: I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace functionally conceding land, Russia is slowly welcomed back into international trade, all while (optimistically speaking) the ~$500+ billion rebuilding contracts are negotiated between Russian and Western oligarchs funded with IMF style loans to Ukrainians that'll eventually get shafted with austerity to pay off the profits of said oligarchs we can revisit your ideas.
Theres no going back from this war in terms of a return to normal relations with Russia, we are going on day 1006 of a full scale war in Europe. Even if Trump manages a "peace plan" for Ukraine, (and lets say its not atrocious), The ties are cut between Russia and Europe. Worst case scenario for everyone would be if Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 represents the Japanese incursions and all out war in 1937 of China. We may have already entered a soft World War 3. I mean literal North Korean troops are now fighting with Russians against Ukraine alone.
Wild you think there will be any kind of rebuilding contracts.
Oh, there definitely will be rebuilding contracts. Half of Ukraine was effectively flattened. There's billions upon billions of dollars worth of damage and Ukraine doesn't have the capacity on its own to rebuild what is needed fast enough. Consider how long it took the UK to rebuild after WW2 *with* the Marshall plan.
That said, there is nothing nefarious about rebuilding contracts. It's literally what needs doing after the war is over, and doing it faster rather than slower is best.
Where GH is delusional is in his belief that Putin will accept an end to this war with any form of peace negotiation that Ukraine can accept. What he has demanded at every step of the way is Ukraine becoming a vassal state of Russia: replacement of the government with a Russian puppet, renunciation of joining NATO and EU, and, of course, the surrender of the 4 oblasts they claimed. That isn't just the starting point of the negotiation, it's the minimum he wants for peace. For Ukraine, this is tantamount to complete capitulation, and if it were acceptable, they could just have let the tanks roll into Kyiv in 2022. It clearly wasn't acceptable then, and polls show that it's still unacceptable now. Russia would need to win the war far harder than they are doing to make it something the Ukrainian people would consider. That capitulation, btw, would also almost certainly mean no Western rebuilding funds. Not because they don't need it, but because we are petty assholes who don't give money to regimes we don't like, even if we are partially responsible for their existence, and our money is a requirement for them to have basic necessities.
The alternative, of course, is Ukraine fighting on. Trump isn't some miracle worker who through his mere existence is changing Putin's mind on the requirements for "peace". So Trump's government is going to face the ugly truth that they can either continue to support Ukraine with arms deals, or they can watch Ukraine continue to fight with whatever means they have. Perhaps the latter will be enough to not get rolled up. Perhaps it won't be. But Trump's "peace" is not happening. Peace will only be had when one side can no longer fight. Removing support for Ukraine makes it more likely that side will be Ukraine, leading to the complete capitulation I described above. It doesn't guarantee it, and it still won't happen overnight. Let's hope for the roughly 80%+ of Ukrainians who oppose that "peace" that it doesn't happen at all.
On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote: One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years? It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory.
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 24 2024 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] The same "investigators" that say Israel isn't committing war crimes. Can close both those cases I guess /s
The cruel irony that the same people insisting Ukraine's "revolution" is rational and should continue to be fought no matter the human cost based on the alternative of having a government beholden to Putin are totally supportive of USians willingly handing control of the most lethal military in the world over to someone they insist they KNOW collaborated with Putin as his useful idiot to overthrow US democracy and install himself as a dictator seems lost on everyone but me at this point.
Ok, so what do you propose? Ukraine gives up and lets Russia genocide them?
No. I think it's probably a good idea for both the US and Ukraine to do whatever is necessary for their country not to be run by a useful idiot for Putin.
That would mean not freely handing control of the most lethal military in the world over to a guy libs/Dems are sure is a useful idiot for Putin AND WILL IMMEDIATELY PRESSURE/FORCE UKRAINE TO CONCEDE. Maybe fight against the US being taken over by useful idiot for Putin comparably hard as they have/have expected from Ukrainians (who don't have the most lethal military in the world).
Or libs/Dems could just also tell Ukrainians like they are telling people like me in the US: "Sure, having a leader that's a useful idiot for Putin sucks, but it's better to have that than to have the consequences of refusing to accept that".
That would be another way for them to resolve the contradiction and probably what they ultimately will do if/when Ukraine negotiates negative peace, Russia is reluctantly welcomed back into trade with the West, and they remember how to look at Ukrainian revolutionaries like Dav1oN like they look at me.
You know your writing has become increasingly vague and obfuscating. Are you plotting an assassination or your own version of January 6 or encouraging others to do the same or what is going on here with 'do whatever is necessary'?
Is that what you deem necessary to prevent Ukraine/the US from being run by a useful idiot for Putin?
No.
See how easy it is to answer a question in a straight forward manner? (I have also given reasons why not in the past.) But here you are flipping the question back to me rather than answer directly. So what are you on about?
So Trump can force Ukraine to settle for negative peace. Then Ukrainians and USians can focus on winning their next elections to prevent their governments from being controlled by useful idiots for Putin in your opinion?
Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
That is much less a response that adresses the point being made and just you moving the goalposts from 'this is what the people of Ukraine want' to 'this is what Zelensky is going to do regardless of what the people want'.
Just thought I'd point that out, seeing as Kwark was busy telling you why even your moving goalpost point doesn't make much sense.
On November 22 2024 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]Then I showed polling demonstrating a majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a deal ASAP, rather than continue fighting.
Presumably the "inkling of weakness" was Crimea and that ship sailed about a decade ago.
Ukraine no longer existing was a possible consequence of their violent overthrow of their democratically elected government. Their reliance on the US to protect them from Russia's response to that was predictably shortsighted and their negotiating position gets weaker by the day.
I think the war will be winding down within ~a year even if some contingent of Ukrainians hold out as insurgent/terrorist style opposition.
Today I learned a fun thing about the polling you linked. It has been grossly misrepresented by the media,...+ Show Spoiler +
and by you (although likely not intentionally).
This question was asked only of people who think "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible."
38% say that Ukraine should fight until it wins a total victory over Russia with Russia either surrendering or suffering such an extensive military defeat that Ukraine achieves all of its territorial ambitions. 52% say that Ukraine should be open to negotiations to end the war. 9% don't know. 1% rounding presumably.
Then they asked only those 52% if Ukraine should make some territorial concessions. 38% of them said no which puts them with the original 38% as people who will only settle for total victory. To them the negotiation is an openness to accepting Russian surrender, given that Russia has claimed half of Ukraine as Russian territory within its constitution and would have to surrender them back. 52% of the 52% are open to some territorial concessions.
So that's 27% willing to give Russia some land in exchange for peace, 20% willing to hear Russia's offer of surrender, and 38% who will shoot the Russian waving the white flag.
Then within that 27% who are open to trading land for peace you have the people who are willing to concede the 2014 occupation of Crimea, but will fight to the death for the subsequent oblasts, and so forth.
Basically it says the opposite to what you presented it as saying. But it[ was misrepresented all over the media and
On November 25 2024 23:33 KwarK wrote: [quote] Ukraine has autonomy and Putin isn’t offering them peace anyway so the idea of Trump forcing them into accepting a peace is flawed for multiple reasons. I think you need to update your imperialist worldview.
If you prefer to call it "pressure" or "leverage" Ukraine into accepting a negative peace deal by removing critical support that's fine. Zelensky has already broken from your chickenhawk fantasies+ Show Spoiler +
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
EDIT: I should mention I suspect that this change in rhetoric is related to recognizing that Putin has much less motivation to stop with Trump in office unless Trump uncharacteristically pressures him to
Had my previous thoughts on Ukrainians/Zelensky's bluster on refusing to negotiate/concede land they've lost linked, and are even more true than they were when I said it back in July:
They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
Zelensky isn't allowed to give up Ukrainian land. Only a total referendum can change the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainians are very clear about what their response to that would be. They are committed to either victory or death + Show Spoiler +
and when tankies like you insist that helping them achieve victory is in some way hurting them you are arguing for the only other offer on the table, their death. If you want them to die with sticks in their hands rather than guns then say as much. Otherwise fuck off.
Unfortunately they can't do much about him conceding the land until after he's effectively done it (legally or not), a negative peace is negotiated, and Ukrainian elections potentially start happening again.
The entire conflict started because it turns out the Ukrainian public very much can do something about a president who starts unilaterally giving shit to Russia against the will of the people.
If you're unaware of that then you're probably in the wrong topic.
So, you're suggesting they could violently overthrow Zelensky amid peace negotiations... good plan... /s
, I'm not suggesting that. This is your suggestion, you're the one coming up with this insanity, I'm the one poking holes in it. Don't try that reversal shit.
Your suggestion is that in the middle of a war Zelensky engage in secret negotiations with the enemy as part of an illegal and unconstitutional conspiracy to legitimize their seizure of part of the nation he serves. And that when this treason, and it would be treason, comes to light he'll simply declare that he's done a treason and the Ukrainian military and people will simply go "well, I guess we got treasoned" and all their motivations for fighting will stop. That's what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that that probably won't work. Maybe the Parliament will just say "no" and remove him from power. Maybe the people will. Maybe the military will. But randomly declaring that you've done a treason doesn't actually resolve the fundamentals of this conflict and you'd have to be a moron to think it would. All the Ukrainian families who have literally had their children stolen and "adopted out" in Russia without documentation aren't suddenly going to decide that they don't want them back.
Zelensky declaring that he's decided to give Ukraine to Russia doesn't actually carry any weight to Ukraine because it's not a presidential act, it's not within the power of the president, it'd be just a personal thing he felt like doing as an individual. There would be no obligation for anyone to go along with it.
Overall I rate your plan to end the Ukraine war 0/10 and you should feel bad
.
If you say so.
I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace functionally conceding land, Russia is slowly welcomed back into international trade, all while (optimistically speaking) the ~$500+ billion rebuilding contracts are negotiated between Russian and Western oligarchs funded with IMF style loans to Ukrainians that'll eventually get shafted with austerity to pay off the profits of said oligarchs we can revisit your ideas.
Your desperate need for everything to be some kind of internationalist IMF conspiracy to inflict austerity on the world is truly baffling and more than a little weird. You reach for this shit like a neo Nazi desperately trying to connect the dots between dentistry and feminism, but making even less sense. You should go back and read some of your posts out loud and try to work out how you go to this point.
Literally nothing going on here has anything to do with austerity. Russia has been an empire for hundreds of years. Some of their colonies attempted to break away. They're invading them.
But since you're making predictions, go ahead and describe this peace to us. What would Putin accept that Ukraine could give? Putin won't settle for just Crimea. He won't settle for just Crimea and the Donbas. He won't settle for just Crimea, the Donbas, and everything behind the current line of contact. Hell, he probably won't settle for Kherson thrown in too. He wants all that land, plus full disarmament of Ukraine, plus functional control of the foreign policy of Ukraine in preparation for full absorption back into Russia.
Predict the date in the next year by which Ukraine will give him that. Or, if you think that Ukraine won't give him that, predict the date by which Putin settles for less.
This is all pure speculations of course. I know you think Russia is going to fight until the last man. But personally, I believe there's a world where Russia accepts a peace deal with the territories they are holding right now, and Ukraine joining NATO or getting similar assurance, based on fear of not being able to continue the war for much longer due to economic issues. Similarly, Ukraine could be convinced to agree to the same deal if they think the alternative is a slow but eventually complete capitulation once/if western support dries up after Trump comes into power.
I'm not sure about Ukraine's willingness to accept such a deal (It would at the very least be a very lengthy process and require rewriting of the constitution), but there is evidence Russia likely would, based on their sudden increase of attacks before the US election, knowing Trump is going to go into his tenure on the back of cutting support for Ukraine and "creating peace in Europe". If Russia wasn't willing to entertain a peace deal, it would be much more reasonable to wait until after Trump comes into power, and after the support is cut, rather than push for territories before it happens.
But maybe that's just me being naive thinking Russia has anything resembling "reason" and "logic" to begin with.
On November 26 2024 16:32 mounteast02 wrote: From economic point of view, the country of ukraine is cooked. The devastation of the war, reconstruction / rebuilding cost, the money the ukraine government borrowed from the western powers, the lost of properties (land) ownership to foreign entities etc. will make it very difficult for the "post war" (whatever it means) ukraine to survive financially.
For comparison, the UK only fully repay the loan they took out during WW2 in 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan I am no financial expert, but if the ukraine situation have any resemblance to that of the UK in WW2, it is not looking good for ukraine.
Do you believe just because UK only finally repaid their WW2 loan in 2006, that they have been "cooked" since 1945?
Yes, Ukraine will have to build up, but that is incredibly unlikely to be an issue. See, building up is a financial opportunity. Westerly countries have been more than willing to support Ukraine in rebuilding their country with loans, trade agreements and even aid. Investing into a country rebuilding after a war is the easiest decision you could make. There is literally no way to go but up, so you're practically assured profits.
What they're hesitant on supporting the war itself, not the rebuild that comes after. It's pretty likely Ukraine is going to rebuild themselves much faster than Russia, who will still be facing sanctions even if the war ended tomorrow, and a massive loss of men from an entire generation
On November 26 2024 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote: I suspect in the next year or so when Zelensky has most likely negotiated a negative peace functionally conceding land, Russia is slowly welcomed back into international trade, all while (optimistically speaking) the ~$500+ billion rebuilding contracts are negotiated between Russian and Western oligarchs funded with IMF style loans to Ukrainians that'll eventually get shafted with austerity to pay off the profits of said oligarchs we can revisit your ideas.
Theres no going back from this war in terms of a return to normal relations with Russia, we are going on day 1006 of a full scale war in Europe. Even if Trump manages a "peace plan" for Ukraine, (and lets say its not atrocious), The ties are cut between Russia and Europe. Worst case scenario for everyone would be if Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 represents the Japanese incursions and all out war in 1937 of China. We may have already entered a soft World War 3. I mean literal North Korean troops are now fighting with Russians against Ukraine alone.
Wild you think there will be any kind of rebuilding contracts.
You have more faith in the EU then I do. If/When this war ends I fully expect Europe to be back sucking on cheap Russian gas within a year.
EPT
