Ukraine - Russia Conflict

Honestly, I don’t see why Putin would stop when Russia holds all the cards right now. He knows Trump wants out of the war, and it’s doubtful he’ll do anything to change that stance. Sanctions probably won’t work because Russia has oil and resources others want. As for military aid, I think Putin believes his armies can endure the pain until they achieve their goals. My theory? Trump gives him the majority of his demands and likely pressures Ukraine to accept or risk losing U.S. support.
 
Jaknight said:
Honestly, I don’t see why Putin would stop when Russia holds all the cards right now. He knows Trump wants out of the war, and it’s doubtful he’ll do anything to change that stance. Sanctions probably won’t work because Russia has oil and resources others want. As for military aid, I think Putin believes his armies can endure the pain until they achieve their goals. My theory? Trump gives him the majority of his demands and likely pressures Ukraine to accept or risk losing U.S. support.
Click to expand...
This is a frustrating comment. I understand you don't like the president, and your opinion is that he is always and forever a Russian catspaw (despite the fact patterns), but Russia has all the cards. This ceasefire would save lives, and you want peace, and simultaneously, it's not good enough because Putin is in charge, Trump is complicit, and nothing will work because Trump is going to give Putin all his demands? Trump isn't giving Putin anything, it would be Ukraine and Putin coming to terms on a negotiated peace with the US mediating. Mineral deals with American involvement give tacit protections; Ukraine isn't getting into NATO.


This whole discussion has devolved into who can move the goalposts the furthest and the fastest at every turn.

"We want Trump to end this war! He said he would in a day, why isn't it done?!" (Trump starts peace talks, first talks since the war started, unless you count when the Biden admin rejected the first peace talks in January of '24, 3 years after the war started).
"Trump is in bed with Russia; that's why there are no peace talks!" (Trump brings Zelensky to the Oval with a ceasefire on the table, and Zelensky implodes).
"Trump and Vance disrespected Ukraine! Now we will never have peace!" (Zelensky apologizes, comes to the table for peace 48 hours later).
"Well, Trump didn't involve Putin, so obviously, he's going to sell Ukraine out and give Russia everything!" (Putin agrees to ceasefire, agrees to come to table)
"EVEN IF there is a ceasefire, it's useless because Putin won't follow it!" (Putin is a liar, but without terms of a ceasefire, there is no incentive structure for him to follow one at all, and that's what we are getting to).

So, I will ask- what would it look like if you could lay out your alternate plan to get the dying to stop in Ukraine? Let's pretend Trump doesn't exist and you could outline terms for a ceasefire and resultant terms to end the war. What would that look like? What terms are acceptable in your opinion? What could the admin do to "be enough" to achieve peace?
 
amlove21 said:
This is a frustrating comment. I understand you don't like the president, and your opinion is that he is always and forever a Russian catspaw (despite the fact patterns), but Russia has all the cards. This ceasefire would save lives, and you want peace, and simultaneously, it's not good enough because Putin is in charge, Trump is complicit, and nothing will work because Trump is going to give Putin all his demands? Trump isn't giving Putin anything, it would be Ukraine and Putin coming to terms on a negotiated peace with the US mediating. Mineral deals with American involvement give tacit protections; Ukraine isn't getting into NATO.


This whole discussion has devolved into who can move the goalposts the furthest and the fastest at every turn.

"We want Trump to end this war! He said he would in a day, why isn't it done?!" (Trump starts peace talks, first talks since the war started, unless you count when the Biden admin rejected the first peace talks in January of '24, 3 years after the war started).
"Trump is in bed with Russia; that's why there are no peace talks!" (Trump brings Zelensky to the Oval with a ceasefire on the table, and Zelensky implodes).
"Trump and Vance disrespected Ukraine! Now we will never have peace!" (Zelensky apologizes, comes to the table for peace 48 hours later).
"Well, Trump didn't involve Putin, so obviously, he's going to sell Ukraine out and give Russia everything!" (Putin agrees to ceasefire, agrees to come to table)
"EVEN IF there is a ceasefire, it's useless because Putin won't follow it!" (Putin is a liar, but without terms of a ceasefire, there is no incentive structure for him to follow one at all, and that's what we are getting to).

So, I will ask- what would it look like if you could lay out your alternate plan to get the dying to stop in Ukraine? Let's pretend Trump doesn't exist and you could outline terms for a ceasefire and resultant terms to end the war. What would that look like? What terms are acceptable in your opinion? What could the admin do to "be enough" to achieve peace?
Click to expand...

I think his comment is frustrating, I also think it's largely valid. I am as much a Trump guy as anyone, and I think he's doing the best with a shit sandwich he's inherited. I support Trump brokering a ceasefire and hopefully opening the door to end of the war, but I also think it's a classic definition of compromise: an agreement in which no one is happy. I think finding which of Putin's buttons to push is going to be challenging, as it's been challenging for every US president.

Putin does have a history of ignoring ceasefires, Putin does have a history of duplicity, Putin does have a history of ignoring international mandates, we know sanctions are largely irrelevant...but it doesn't mean you stop trying.
 
I'm just going to adopt a "perfect is good enough" position on how I view western politics - that way I can NEVER ever be wrong regardless of which party is in power.

Contrarianism should be a religion and I should be the Bishop.
 
Box said:
I'm just going to adopt a "perfect is good enough" position on how I view western politics - that way I can NEVER ever be wrong regardless of which party is in power.

Contrarianism should be a religion and I should be the Bishop.
Click to expand...
Bishop? You're at least a cardinal bro. Wait which one is higher? Religion is fun.
 
amlove21 said:
Mineral deals with American involvement give tacit protections; Ukraine isn't getting into NATO.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the only thing I disagree with. I don't see the mineral deal providing any sort of protection if it isn't explicit; I just can't see use engaging in banana wars round 2 over Ukraine.

I think peace needs to be brokered, and Trump is the closest to doing it. I just don't trust that the implication of security means anything to Putin. Hell, simply negotiating "violations of the agreement will lead to the US providing arms and money" is at least something to provide some sort of security without allowing NATO membership or putting us into a shooting conflict.
 
Devildoc said:
I think his comment is frustrating, I also think it's largely valid. I am as much a Trump guy as anyone, and I think he's doing the best with a shit sandwich he's inherited. I support Trump brokering a ceasefire and hopefully opening the door to end of the war, but I also think it's a classic definition of compromise: an agreement in which no one is happy. I think finding which of Putin's buttons to push is going to be challenging, as it's been challenging for every US president.

Putin does have a history of ignoring ceasefires, Putin does have a history of duplicity, Putin does have a history of ignoring international mandates, we know sanctions are largely irrelevant...but it doesn't mean you stop trying.
Click to expand...
Your bolded is precisely my intent. It's a negotiation; no one wins, you get as close to your BATNA as you can, and realize that outcomes aren't going to be 100% of your dream utopian scenario. The laser focused goal here should be "Peace at an acceptable cost", instead I am seeing something very different.

Ukraine isn't getting land back; they aren't joining NATO. IF the EU stops buying Russian gas/oil and the US leverages other sanctions, Russia loses too. I have seen no one here lay out their cogent plan for peace or what's an acceptable off ramp, only that they don't like what the admin is doing for reasons.

Cookie_ said:
This is pretty much the only thing I disagree with. I don't see the mineral deal providing any sort of protection if it isn't explicit; I just can't see use engaging in banana wars round 2 over Ukraine.

I think peace needs to be brokered, and Trump is the closest to doing it. I just don't trust that the implication of security means anything to Putin. Hell, simply negotiating "violations of the agreement will lead to the US providing arms and money" is at least something to provide some sort of security without allowing NATO membership or putting us into a shooting conflict.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is that if we had business interests and American companies/people in Ukraine running those interests, then Russia knows a further "small incursion" doesn't get them NATO; it gets them the US response, which Russia wants no part of in their weakened state. You don't need explicit guarantees of safety (like we had with the Budapest Memorandum which lead to the relinquishment and non-proliferation agreement for Ukraine in '94) when you align American interests and a promise that we will personally mollywhop you if you interfere.

That isn't an agreement that this is the way to go, but my overall position that the EU should be providing those assurances (and not the US) hasn't changed. However, absent those security guarantees, I will take the mineral deal and a tacit understanding that if you touch the factories we are going to glass the forces you used.
 
amlove21 said:
This is a frustrating comment. I understand you don't like the president, and your opinion is that he is always and forever a Russian catspaw (despite the fact patterns), but Russia has all the cards. This ceasefire would save lives, and you want peace, and simultaneously, it's not good enough because Putin is in charge, Trump is complicit, and nothing will work because Trump is going to give Putin all his demands? Trump isn't giving Putin anything, it would be Ukraine and Putin coming to terms on a negotiated peace with the US mediating. Mineral deals with American involvement give tacit protections; Ukraine isn't getting into NATO.


This whole discussion has devolved into who can move the goalposts the furthest and the fastest at every turn.

"We want Trump to end this war! He said he would in a day, why isn't it done?!" (Trump starts peace talks, first talks since the war started, unless you count when the Biden admin rejected the first peace talks in January of '24, 3 years after the war started).
"Trump is in bed with Russia; that's why there are no peace talks!" (Trump brings Zelensky to the Oval with a ceasefire on the table, and Zelensky implodes).
"Trump and Vance disrespected Ukraine! Now we will never have peace!" (Zelensky apologizes, comes to the table for peace 48 hours later).
"Well, Trump didn't involve Putin, so obviously, he's going to sell Ukraine out and give Russia everything!" (Putin agrees to ceasefire, agrees to come to table)
"EVEN IF there is a ceasefire, it's useless because Putin won't follow it!" (Putin is a liar, but without terms of a ceasefire, there is no incentive structure for him to follow one at all, and that's what we are getting to).

So, I will ask- what would it look like if you could lay out your alternate plan to get the dying to stop in Ukraine? Let's pretend Trump doesn't exist and you could outline terms for a ceasefire and resultant terms to end the war. What would that look like? What terms are acceptable in your opinion? What could the admin do to "be enough" to achieve peace?
Click to expand...
definitely wouldn’t have attacked my allies, nor would I have blamed the war on Ukraine, which I think gave the Russians a huge advantage in negotiations. I would have kept a united front and made it clear to Putin: if you want to negotiate, we’re ready; if you want to keep fighting, we can do that too—make him blink first.

I know compromises will happen—NATO is out, but another security agreement could be possible. The mineral deal is a nothing burger. Ukraine will most likely, unfortunately, have to concede the territories Russia has taken, but we can ensure they don’t try again or at least make it extremely difficult for them.
 
Something to remember. Trump pulled us out of two treaties with Russia.
One because Putin violated Treaty limits(Obama looked the other way)
and another because the Russians jumped ahead technology-wise and may have exceeded treaty limits.
 
Jaknight said:
definitely wouldn’t have attacked my allies, nor would I have blamed the war on Ukraine, which I think gave the Russians a huge advantage in negotiations. I would have kept a united front and made it clear to Putin: if you want to negotiate, we’re ready; if you want to keep fighting, we can do that too—make him blink first.

I know compromises will happen—NATO is out, but another security agreement could be possible. The mineral deal is a nothing burger. Ukraine will most likely, unfortunately, have to concede the territories Russia has taken, but we can ensure they don’t try again or at least make it extremely difficult for them.
Click to expand...
You're answering a question I didn't ask; I asked for your plan to peace. Not simply you saying you know better by looking back and say "that was stupid"- that's the easiest thing in the world to do. I am actually asking you to provide what you would agree with in policy. Russia's military strategy is always to keep fighting, they'll just throw bodies at the problem. So why would continuing the slaughter of Ukrainians cause Putin to "blink"?

Is the idea here that nothing we have done up to this point has worked but we are really gonna wag our finger extra hard and this proxy war we have only the most tenuous interest in ends because we mean it this time? Security agreements didn't work. Tough talk didn't work. The mineral deal brought Zelensky to the table and now that's a reality, and it benefits America, monetarily, and Ukraine, with American interests preventing Russian aggression. Russia is now presenting its anchor (what it wants), and we get to negotiate the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA).

If by "attacking allies" and "blaming the war on Ukraine" you mean "a politician in an administration said some things I don't like", then sure. Words are violence and all that. If you mean what those words mean, then no, we didn't do that.

The problem with your position when juxtaposed with others is that you're left with a very real consequence that betrays your overall BATNA, which is peace. All the homies hate Putin and Russia. They're an adversary. But do we want peace or not, because you need Russia and Putin to get there.
 
amlove21 said:
You're answering a question I didn't ask; I asked for your plan to peace. Not simply you saying you know better by looking back and say "that was stupid"- that's the easiest thing in the world to do. I am actually asking you to provide what you would agree with in policy. Russia's military strategy is always to keep fighting, they'll just throw bodies at the problem. So why would continuing the slaughter of Ukrainians cause Putin to "blink"?

Is the idea here that nothing we have done up to this point has worked but we are really gonna wag our finger extra hard and this proxy war we have only the most tenuous interest in ends because we mean it this time? Security agreements didn't work. Tough talk didn't work. The mineral deal brought Zelensky to the table and now that's a reality, and it benefits America, monetarily, and Ukraine, with American interests preventing Russian aggression. Russia is now presenting its anchor (what it wants), and we get to negotiate the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA).

If by "attacking allies" and "blaming the war on Ukraine" you mean "a politician in an administration said some things I don't like", then sure. Words are violence and all that. If you mean what those words mean, then no, we didn't do that.

The problem with your position when juxtaposed with others is that you're left with a very real consequence that betrays your overall BATNA, which is peace. All the homies hate Putin and Russia. They're an adversary. But do we want peace or not, because you need Russia and Putin to get there.
Click to expand...
Policy-wise, I would agree—no NATO membership for Ukraine, but there should be a DMZ between them, manned by Europeans, not us. Ukraine should be allowed to join the EU, and we should agree to no missile deployments near the Russian border. Any further Russian aggression toward Ukraine would prompt European aid short of sending troops. However, if Ukraine initiates aggression, we would not support them. Also Russia can keep what they hold currently but those regions should have a proper vote to confirm.
 
Topkick said:
His spending requirements? Or are we talking about what they agreed to pay? Should we defend countries who don't even pay their basic NATO membership dues, year after year?
Click to expand...
I know Trump has been adamant about the Europeans doing their fair share, and I agree. I was referring more to his threat of pulling troops out if Europe doesn’t accept the peace deal.
 
Jaknight said:
I know Trump has been adamant about the Europeans doing their fair share, and I agree. I was referring more to his threat of pulling troops out if Europe doesn’t accept the peace deal.
Click to expand...
Ok. Well, I think they start by paying their NATO dues before bitching about who we defend. Those who do, like Poland, should have a seat at the table.
 
Jaknight said:
Policy-wise, I would agree—no NATO membership for Ukraine, but there should be a DMZ between them, manned by Europeans, not us. Ukraine should be allowed to join the EU, and we should agree to no missile deployments near the Russian border. Any further Russian aggression toward Ukraine would prompt European aid short of sending troops. However, if Ukraine initiates aggression, we would not support them. Also Russia can keep what they hold currently but those regions should have a proper vote to confirm.
Click to expand...
Why isn't Ukraine already in the EU? Ukraine hasn't met the demands of the EU (they applied for membership in 2022) to join. Judicial reforms, anti-corruption measures, and the protection of minority rights are still pretty big due-outs for Ukraine. There has been essentially no movement on those since the initial application. They're allowed to join now- the problem here is understanding Ukraine's very problematic history that did, in fact, start before 2021.

Can you clarify what you mean by the bolded? I didn't see America providing any support (which I agree with) until that part. If the EU funds their military appropriately and provides security guarantees to Ukraine, why would America be involved in future conflicts, regardless of the aggressor?
 
amlove21 said:
Why isn't Ukraine already in the EU? Ukraine hasn't met the demands of the EU (they applied for membership in 2022) to join. Judicial reforms, anti-corruption measures, and the protection of minority rights are still pretty big due-outs for Ukraine. There has been essentially no movement on those since the initial application. They're allowed to join now- the problem here is understanding Ukraine's very problematic history that did, in fact, start before 2021.

Can you clarify what you mean by the bolded? I didn't see America providing any support (which I agree with) until that part. If the EU funds their military appropriately and provides security guarantees to Ukraine, why would America be involved in future conflicts, regardless of the aggressor?
Click to expand...
Sorry I meant Europe not America
 

Similar threads

Sock'em_Slav
Sock'em_Slav Intro: 18X
Replies
4
Views
1K
Muppet
Muppet
S
Future role in Ukraine for SOF?
Replies
4
Views
2K
BlackSmokeRisinG
BlackSmokeRisinG
Marauder06
Combined/Joint SOF Panel at West Point--Your Thoughts?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Gunz
G
RackMaster
Russian jets buzz Canadian frigate in Black Sea
Replies
3
Views
2K
BloodStripe
BloodStripe
AWP
Germany Winning WWII
2
Replies
20
Views
5K
Red Flag 1
R
Back
Top