How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Jayjay]

I think Ukraine's stance of public declarations of not negotiating is still a bad idea. It makes it harder to come to the table later. Right now, Ukraine could easily say it's ready to negotiate at any time, because Russia is going to decline the offer anyway.

Except that this opens Ukraine up to more bad-faith attacks from Russia. Opening an offer to negotiate means accepting ceasefire conditions during negotiations and exposure of negotiators which Russia is going to game against: they will demand negotiations on their terms, on Russian soil, or with high value targets while exposing low value targets.

The biggest danger here is in Russia NOT declining, but rather using it as an opportunity to get a knife into someone's back.

It's already happened, in fact, a couple times.

Ukraine and Russia negotiated briefly earlier this year without a ceasefire. And in modern times negotiators don't even need to meet face-to-face.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, bombing a car and killing a civilian is terrorism, but bombing Ukraine and killing thousands is simply the reunification

American military experts are on records saying that Russian military operation is extremely accurate and measured, unlike what you did in Iraq/Afghanistan/etc.

Are you saying Russia gets kudos for killing thousands of civilians instead of tens to hundreds of thousands?

Killing a Russian civilian is "terrorism", but thousands of Ukrainians civilians is "accurate and measured".

Again, It's ukrainian side who is targeting civilians. Russian side is killing ukrainian soldiers.

Prove it.

 

[Oleg]

I think Ukraine's stance of public declarations of not negotiating is still a bad idea. It makes it harder to come to the table later. Right now, Ukraine could easily say it's ready to negotiate at any time, because Russia is going to decline the offer anyway.

A disingenuous offer wouldn’t benefit them in the long run IMO. It would encourage Russia, as it would be taken as a lack of resolve.

It wouldn't have to be disingenuous. Even if Ukraine's current position is that it wants Russia to withdraw to February 23 borders, there are other things to discuss like the status of Crimea and Donbas, and security guarantees for both countries.

The problem may be that Ukraine thinks it must, against its self-interest, remain intransigently antagonistic against evil Putin / Russia to appease its backers in the West. Yet, the flow of money and arms will, if not already, slow and end. Ukraine can cause Russian casualties but cannot maintain an offensive. Russia has the territory it wants and just has to sit it out. The West should signal that compromise is okay.

 

[Jayjay]

Russian authorities revealed data on ukrainian terrorist who assassinated Dugina.
It's a woman and she had been known to be Azov regiment soldier prior to the event. How FSB let her in is beyond my understanding. But it is what it is. Plus, ukrainian scam used russian "opposition" idiots in Ukraine to publish crap on Dugin just hours before terrorist act.

And you believe FSB is telling the truth?

Even after acknowledging that it doesn't make a lick of sense for Russia to let a "known Azov regiment soldier" in and out of the country without someone keeping tabs on her activities?

Here's a more likely scenario: FSB dug up if any Ukrainian left the country in the last two days, found one (or they could be lying about that too), and then made up some bullshit story about her being an "Azov soldier" even if Azov has never had female soldiers. Russia is about to designate Azov as a terrorist organization, so it serves their purpose to pin this on Azov.

 

[Jayjay]

American military experts are on records saying that Russian military operation is extremely accurate

Why can't you reveal your sources for these extraordinary bits of propa - er, information?

It isn't inaccurate. Russia hasn't waged an unrestricted bombing campaign on Ukraine. And I'm certain Russia has hit all sorts of targets like theaters and hospitals quite accurately and intentionally.

Yes, Russia did hit "theaters" and "hospitals" with ukrainian millitary in it.
You have a problem with it?
In contrast ukrainian regime is bombing civilian areas randomly.

Got evidence of such a strike?

I didn't think so.

 

[Elixir]

Got evidence of such a strike?

I didn't think so.

He has the same evidence that he has for all his other bullshit assertions:
"Putler says".

 

[Jayjay]

I think Ukraine's stance of public declarations of not negotiating is still a bad idea. It makes it harder to come to the table later. Right now, Ukraine could easily say it's ready to negotiate at any time, because Russia is going to decline the offer anyway.

A disingenuous offer wouldn’t benefit them in the long run IMO. It would encourage Russia, as it would be taken as a lack of resolve.

It wouldn't have to be disingenuous. Even if Ukraine's current position is that it wants Russia to withdraw to February 23 borders, there are other things to discuss like the status of Crimea and Donbas, and security guarantees for both countries.

The problem may be that Ukraine thinks it must, against its self-interest, remain intransigently antagonistic against evil Putin / Russia to appease its backers in the West. Yet, the flow of money and arms will, if not already, slow and end. Ukraine can cause Russian casualties but cannot maintain an offensive. Russia has the territory it wants and just has to sit it out. The West should signal that compromise is okay.

I don't disagree, but the west shouldn't force Ukraine into a compromise. Ukraine needs to come to that conclusion by themselves or it won't last. Most of Ukraine's backers want the war to end, and wouldn't mind a quick compromise, but the problem is that handing a victory to Russia would just be a "Minsk III" and lead to continuation of the war somewhere down the line.

 

[Rhea]

Just thought it would be fun to have a little “memory lane” trip back to page 1, when barbos was sure Ukraine was worthless, and not wanted by Russia and Russia has no designs on invading and this was Obvious. The eastern sttrech, indeed, is worthless to Russia!!

I have no idea how "the west" should respond, because I can't understand what - if anything - Russia figures to gain by this.
My suspicion is that there is little interest in conquering and occupying Ukraine, and the whole charade is a distractive display of nationalism, by which Putin perhaps hopes to elevate his own domestic standing, which has reportedly been suffering of late.

Projecting again? No one in Russia considers it a great idea.

Putin does not need to invade anyone. All he needs is to start North Stream 2 and wait until all contracts with Ukrainian pipelines expire.
Ukraine and US, on the other hand, realize that they need some drastic shit to prevent that.

Your posts to Elixir don't make sense to me. Where is the projecting?

He is projecting when he suggests that It's Russia. It's Ukraine and their nazies who are desperate enough to start a war and play the victim and US is perfectly fine with that plan. After all it worked in Georgia, why not try again?

Ukraine is in deep economic shit. They need a war, not Russia.
Russia is doing fine, gas prices at all time highs, oil is too doing well.
And Ukraine is about to collapse on their own. Gas retail prices jumped 5x, Power stations shutdowns because of lack coal.
Well, there is a risk of Ukrainian Trump starting a war, that's bad.

Are you trying to say that Russia isn't amassing troops on the Ukrainian border?

I am saying that MSM forgot to inform you that Ukrainian Trump is doing the same.
And, unlike Russia, in doing so they are violating Minsk agreements.

Russian press discuss how much that supposedly leaked invasion plan looks like it was made up in Pentagon (military terms which are not used in Russia and other stuff)

That explains the est. 90,000 troop buildup on the Ukranian Border.

Yes, it actually explains it. Because Ukraine moved half on their of forces to the border with breakout republics. If US wants to start a war then Russia must be prepared.

ROFL the stuff your sources feed you about the USA are lies as well, and generally better crafted.
I was going to mention how Putin is probably afraid that Ukraine will invade Russia with US backing, to support Ukrainian imperial expansionist ambitions.
Glad I didn’t mention it

My sources? how are they mine? these are ukrainian sources, they don't really hide their intentions. And stop this crap about russian expansion. All Russia wants is for US stop paying scam around Russia to be a scam.
And Germany in particular agrees with that. The rest of the old EU agrees too, they are just less vocal about it.

The problem here is that it seems like Russia wants a war with Ukraine, for the express purposes of annexation of territory.

That's what MSM says, they are lying. Eastern Ukraine in particular is very unattractive piece of territory. There is only one reason for invading Ukraine - NATO expansion.
Putin informed NATO about that reason in 2008. You should know that by now.

Aww, poor Pootey! Spent so many of his (stolen) billions trying to keep Ukraine in his portfolio, and now the bad bad US wants to kick the poor humanitarian to the curb and let the Trumpy Ukranians ally themselves with the European aggressors who have been trying to invade Russia and annex it for its oil ever since Crimea volunteered to become part of Russia.

^^^
Your news sources have turned you into a laughingstock, barbos.
Putin's ambition to re-create the Soviet glory days has remained the one constant in his erratic behavior. You can dress it up with all kinds lies, you can cite corrupt American motives, real and imagined, but the fact of Russia's perennial aggression can't be magically disappeared by your whining.

Can't counter facts and resort to attacking the messenger?

If "the messenger" ever came up with actual facts that were relevant and in context, I probably wouldn't counter them since they would be facts. But your specious pro-Putin bullshit contains few facts, and those it does reference are warped beyond recognition by the bias forced upon you by your handlers.
Not worth addressing, when the overriding fact is that rationalizing Russia's expansionist ambitions are truly the sole focus of all the arguments you've been fed. All those whataboutisms and false fears of the mighty Ukranian Empire encroaching on Russian territory - it's all bullshit, no matter how many irrelevant facts (like Russian nukes in Cuba) you try to drag into it.

Tell your bosses they need to send you into battle better equipped than this! It will make for much better discussion.

I came with undeniable facts which refute your MSM "facts".
So stop your tiresome "Russian expansionism!" song.
Go and educate yourself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think Ukraine's stance of public declarations of not negotiating is still a bad idea. It makes it harder to come to the table later. Right now, Ukraine could easily say it's ready to negotiate at any time, because Russia is going to decline the offer anyway.

A disingenuous offer wouldn’t benefit them in the long run IMO. It would encourage Russia, as it would be taken as a lack of resolve.

It wouldn't have to be disingenuous. Even if Ukraine's current position is that it wants Russia to withdraw to February 23 borders, there are other things to discuss like the status of Crimea and Donbas, and security guarantees for both countries.

The problem may be that Ukraine thinks it must, against its self-interest, remain intransigently antagonistic against evil Putin / Russia to appease its backers in the West. Yet, the flow of money and arms will, if not already, slow and end. Ukraine can cause Russian casualties but cannot maintain an offensive. Russia has the territory it wants and just has to sit it out. The West should signal that compromise is okay.

Russia is free to stop the military incursion into Ukraine whenever they want. They aren't being forced by Ukraine to be there.

You are saying that Ukraine should just compromise hand over the illegitimately invaded territory to Russia. Like that'll stop this from happening again... like in the 1930s.

 

[Oleg]

I think Ukraine's stance of public declarations of not negotiating is still a bad idea. It makes it harder to come to the table later. Right now, Ukraine could easily say it's ready to negotiate at any time, because Russia is going to decline the offer anyway.

A disingenuous offer wouldn’t benefit them in the long run IMO. It would encourage Russia, as it would be taken as a lack of resolve.

It wouldn't have to be disingenuous. Even if Ukraine's current position is that it wants Russia to withdraw to February 23 borders, there are other things to discuss like the status of Crimea and Donbas, and security guarantees for both countries.

The problem may be that Ukraine thinks it must, against its self-interest, remain intransigently antagonistic against evil Putin / Russia to appease its backers in the West. Yet, the flow of money and arms will, if not already, slow and end. Ukraine can cause Russian casualties but cannot maintain an offensive. Russia has the territory it wants and just has to sit it out. The West should signal that compromise is okay.

Russia is free to stop the military incursion into Ukraine whenever they want. They aren't being forced by Ukraine to be there.

You are saying that Ukraine should just compromise hand over the illegitimately invaded territory to Russia. Like that'll stop this from happening again... like in the 1930s.

No. I’m saying that every soldier who is killed, whether Ukrainian or Russian, is someone’s son, father, or brother. Ukrainian cannot expel Russia from the captured territory. Russia has little incentive to proceed further as it has what it wants. What is the point of more death?

 

[Jarhyn]

"Russia has little reason to keep going" Oleg, you sound like barbos did on page 1.

Might as well say "Germans have little incentive" ala 1930's.

It's all just bullshit Russian propaganda that they would ever stop or leave without getting their faces eaten.

 

[Oleg]

"Russia has little reason to keep going" Oleg, you sound like barbos did on page 1.

Might as well say "Germans have little incentive" ala 1930's.

It's all just bullshit Russian propaganda that they would ever stop or leave without getting their faces eaten.

What reason does it have to keep going? It’s got the eastern territory with its Russian majority, a land bridge to Crimea, and Crimea. Now it’s just wait out the clock.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Russia has little reason to keep going" Oleg, you sound like barbos did on page 1.

Might as well say "Germans have little incentive" ala 1930's.

It's all just bullshit Russian propaganda that they would ever stop or leave without getting their faces eaten.

What reason does it have to keep going? It’s got the eastern territory with its Russian majority, a land bridge to Crimea, and Crimea. Now it’s just wait out the clock.

What reason did Hitler have to keep going after Poland?

Oh yeah, imperialism.

 

[Oleg]

"Russia has little reason to keep going" Oleg, you sound like barbos did on page 1.

Might as well say "Germans have little incentive" ala 1930's.

It's all just bullshit Russian propaganda that they would ever stop or leave without getting their faces eaten.

What reason does it have to keep going? It’s got the eastern territory with its Russian majority, a land bridge to Crimea, and Crimea. Now it’s just wait out the clock.

What reason did Hitler have to keep going after Poland?

Oh yeah, imperialism.

It would be neat if people studied another war. I mean, there were a lot of them.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Russia has little reason to keep going" Oleg, you sound like barbos did on page 1.

Might as well say "Germans have little incentive" ala 1930's.

It's all just bullshit Russian propaganda that they would ever stop or leave without getting their faces eaten.

What reason does it have to keep going? It’s got the eastern territory with its Russian majority, a land bridge to Crimea, and Crimea. Now it’s just wait out the clock.

What reason did Hitler have to keep going after Poland?

Oh yeah, imperialism.

It would be neat if people studied another war. I mean, there were a lot of them.

All of which are irrelevant following the advent of modern warfare and geopolitics.

 

[Oleg]

"Russia has little reason to keep going" Oleg, you sound like barbos did on page 1.

Might as well say "Germans have little incentive" ala 1930's.

It's all just bullshit Russian propaganda that they would ever stop or leave without getting their faces eaten.

What reason does it have to keep going? It’s got the eastern territory with its Russian majority, a land bridge to Crimea, and Crimea. Now it’s just wait out the clock.

What reason did Hitler have to keep going after Poland?

Oh yeah, imperialism.

It would be neat if people studied another war. I mean, there were a lot of them.

All of which are irrelevant following the advent of modern warfare and geopolitics.

Eh? Putin is not Hitler. Modern Russia in not 1939 Germany. 70 rear-old Putin doesn’t have the expendable young men even if he had delusions of empire.

 

[Copernicus]

Once a war is started, it is extremely difficult for a leader, even a dictator like Putin, to just stop it. Vladimir Putin is not personally doing the fighting, nor is everyone involved in the fighting just there because he told them to go. People have lost loved ones as a result of the war, and they have invested a lot in defending it to those around them. You aren't going to tell those people that their loved ones died or suffered grievous life-altering injuries for nothing. This war is now a blood feud between the two countries. It would tear either country apart for its leadership to just capitulate or try to halt the bloodshed. All wars come to an end, but the end is always messy and difficult, especially for the side that backs down first.

 

[Oleg]

Once a war is started, it is extremely difficult for a leader, even a dictator like Putin, to just stop it. Vladimir Putin is not personally doing the fighting, nor is everyone involved in the fighting just there because he told them to go. People have lost loved ones as a result of the war, and they have invested a lot in defending it to those around them. You aren't going to tell those people that their loved ones died or suffered grievous life-altering injuries for nothing. This war is now a blood feud between the two countries. It would tear either country apart for its leadership to just capitulate or try to halt the bloodshed. All wars come to an end, but the end is always messy and difficult, especially for the side that backs down first.

I don't disagree. But at this point it's just killing for killing sake. Arguing who started it and who's to blame is irrelevant. It'd be nice if we take some lessions from history and learn that once there's stalemate every effort should be made to pressure all sides to end it. We may not like that Putin used aggression for territorial gain, but that's the reality we have.

 

[Copernicus]

Once a war is started, it is extremely difficult for a leader, even a dictator like Putin, to just stop it. Vladimir Putin is not personally doing the fighting, nor is everyone involved in the fighting just there because he told them to go. People have lost loved ones as a result of the war, and they have invested a lot in defending it to those around them. You aren't going to tell those people that their loved ones died or suffered grievous life-altering injuries for nothing. This war is now a blood feud between the two countries. It would tear either country apart for its leadership to just capitulate or try to halt the bloodshed. All wars come to an end, but the end is always messy and difficult, especially for the side that backs down first.

I don't disagree. But at this point it's just killing for killing sake. Arguing who started it and who's to blame is irrelevant. It'd be nice if we take some lessions from history and learn that once there's stalemate every effort should be made to pressure all sides to end it. We may not like that Putin used aggression for territorial gain, but that's the reality we have.

But who is "we", Oleg? The behavior of nations is governed by processes that no single individual controls. The individuals involved in those processes all have to calculate the consequences of their behavior. I'm just saying that Putin himself is not entirely in charge of the war. He unleashed the dogs of war, but now he must face them if he tries to get them back into the kennel. Similarly, Zelensky has serious limitations on what he can do to bring the war to an end. Both leaders depend on the willingness of the people around them to take orders, who, in turn, depend on the willingness of others to take their orders. Both Russia and Ukraine have dedicated propaganda factories manufacturing calls to action and to get revenge for the suffering they have had to endure. There needs to be a very difficult negotiation leading to some solution where both sides can disengage while seeming to save face with their public supporters. At this point, I cannot imagine what that would look like. Both sides are so deeply at odds that an attempt at reconciliation could easily be perceived as humiliation and surrender.

 

[Oleg]

Once a war is started, it is extremely difficult for a leader, even a dictator like Putin, to just stop it. Vladimir Putin is not personally doing the fighting, nor is everyone involved in the fighting just there because he told them to go. People have lost loved ones as a result of the war, and they have invested a lot in defending it to those around them. You aren't going to tell those people that their loved ones died or suffered grievous life-altering injuries for nothing. This war is now a blood feud between the two countries. It would tear either country apart for its leadership to just capitulate or try to halt the bloodshed. All wars come to an end, but the end is always messy and difficult, especially for the side that backs down first.

I don't disagree. But at this point it's just killing for killing sake. Arguing who started it and who's to blame is irrelevant. It'd be nice if we take some lessions from history and learn that once there's stalemate every effort should be made to pressure all sides to end it. We may not like that Putin used aggression for territorial gain, but that's the reality we have.

But who is "we", Oleg? The behavior of nations is governed by processes that no single individual controls. The individuals involved in those processes all have to calculate the consequences of their behavior. I'm just saying that Putin himself is not entirely in charge of the war. He unleashed the dogs of war, but now he must face them if he tries to get them back into the kennel. Similarly, Zelensky has serious limitations on what he can do to bring the war to an end. Both leaders depend on the willingness of the people around them to take orders, who, in turn, depend on the willingness of others to take their orders. Both Russia and Ukraine have dedicated propaganda factories manufacturing calls to action and to get revenge for the suffering they have had to endure. There needs to be a very difficult negotiation leading to some solution where both sides can disengage while seeming to save face with their public supporters. At this point, I cannot imagine what that would look like. Both sides are so deeply at odds that an attempt at reconciliation could easily be perceived as humiliation and surrender.

I’m of the view that if neither side wants to lose face, than the international community should pressure them to arbitrate. That’s a quirky 19th century solution that needs a come back.