Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Mihalik]

Unfortunately, the only way Putin could hold Ukraine would be via massive brutality against the civilian population even if they were to surrender.

That's why I hope that eventually he would cut his losses and seek some sort of negotiated compromise where he can save face, but Ukraine (or at least 80% of it) could finally break from Russia.

It's a shitty solution, but it's the only viable one I see.

[Gaidax]

So now you've shifted your argument from "UA will not agree to it" to "NATO will not agree to it". That's fine, it's what I myself said in my first post: might be a bad deal for NATO's interests.

Anyways, I see any kind of relatively peaceful settlement is a repulsive thought to many "westerners" here. Fighting the Russians to the last Ukrainian seems to be a much more pleasing idea. Carry on...

What?

I did not shift anything - it's frikkin' history in front of your face. Ukraine already gave up weapons once for guarantees from Russia and US too, BTW - look what came of it.

It's 2 sides here. There is snowball's chance in hell Ukraine will agree to become demilitarized unless Russia bombs it dust AND there is snowball's chance in hell NATO will get involved in this in any capacity that involves actual fighting Russia for Ukraine.

Like legit, didn't you hear what Biden said? NATO fighting Russia for Ukraine is not happening and it won't happen in future either.

[Yunru]

You are aware that EVERY nation's central bank prints money on demand, right?

Yeah, but china money in un-tradeable. And yeah we all know how USA just prints money like is no tommorow .
https://www.investopedia.com/article...inese-yuan.asp

Heck they are even trying this:
https://www.fpri.org/article/2020/09...-digital-yuan/
And they could use it to trade with russa that way avoiding swift sanctions.

[Uzkin]

Keep pushing that Russian propaganda and keep pretending that demilitarization is an option here. IT'S NOT.

*Sigh.* Did you miss the point (2) in my first post? Being under NATO Article 5 protection would certainly be enough safety guarantee.

[MCMLXXXII]

I wonder if shit would've gone out of hand if putin only invaded Donbas. My guess is there still would be sanctions although not as severe as they are now.

[Jessicka]

*Sigh.* Did you miss the point (2) in my first post? Being under NATO Article 5 protection would certainly be enough safety guarantee.

Also something Russia would never ever agree to anyway.

[Slant]

Anyways, I see any kind of relatively peaceful settlement is a repulsive thought to many "westerners" here. Fighting the Russians to the last Ukrainian seems to be a much more pleasing idea. Carry on...

Of course it's repulsive the way you talk about it. Russia attacked the Ukraine! The only peaceful settlement is Russia fucking off out of Ukraine and Ukraine retaining full sovereignity. And that includes Putin stopping to try and tell Ukraine what to do.

[Uzkin]

What?

I did not shift anything - it's frikkin' history in front of your face. Ukraine already gave up weapons once for guarantees from Russia and US too, BTW - look what came of it.

It's 2 sides here. There is snowball's chance in hell Ukraine will agree to become demilitarized unless Russia bombs it dust AND there is snowball's chance in hell NATO will get involved in this in any capacity that involves actual fighting Russia for Ukraine.

Like legit, didn't you hear what Biden said? NATO fighting Russia for Ukraine is not happening and it won't happen in future either.

Because UA is currently not protected by Article 5. But if it was, would NATO ignore Article 5 in case of an attack against UA? I'd say it is very binding; Biden himself has said the US is fully committed to A 5.

[Slant]

*Sigh.* Did you miss the point (2) in my first post? Being under NATO Article 5 protection would certainly be enough safety guarantee.

A nation without the means to defend itself is not sovereign. Stop pushing that Russian propaganda.

[Azadina]

Guys. You Ukraine soldiers. Yeah, you who got blown the fuck up too. Everyone get your giant sized balls over here and listen up. It's over. You can surrender to the Russians now, some girl in EU is inconvenienced. She has had enough of your wanting to live and be your own people fucking up their life.

I take offence to that. You don't see me crying about rising energy costs, now do you. Don't try to switch the manchild into a girl to mock him. You can keep him as is.

[Mihalik]

I agree with you there. But I disagree that Ukraine should give up any part of its sovereignity. If you do that, it legitimises Russia's invasion as a normalised way to change the map. We're done with that bullshit.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences. The sanctions, trade embargoes and divestment need to remain until fucking Putin keels over and Russia agrees to substantial reforms, reduction of its nuclear arsenal and size of the military and starts at least fucking taking baby steps towards something resembling a democracy.

The normalization of relations needs to be extremely conditional and needs to come with strict checks. Until then, the objective of western powers needs to be the reduction of Russia to a North Korea status.

- - - Updated - - -

*Sigh.* Did you miss the point (2) in my first post? Being under NATO Article 5 protection would certainly be enough safety guarantee.

Article 5 would only be viable if NATO could actually establish troop presence in Ukraine. Which automatically defeats the entire demilitarization.

[Slant]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences. The sanctions, trade embargoes and divestment need to remain until fucking Putin keels over and Russia agrees to substantial reforms, reduction of its nuclear arsenal and size of the military and starts at least fucking taking baby steps towards something resembling a democracy.

The normalization of relations needs to extremely conditional and needs to come with strict checks. Until then, the objective of western powers needs to be the reduction of Russia to a North Korea status.

Sanctions etc. are all fine and dandy, but they're just a method to put pressure on Russia. What needs to happen is for Russia to do a full retreat, secure the border and Ukraine to be a sovereign nation. There is no scenario that I would call acceptable in which Putin doesn't lose his face. You and I are not going to agree on this. You want to be pragmatic, I am thinking mroe long term. If you don't get his nose bloody now, he won't learn the lesson. The times of changing the map by invasion are over. And the West has to make sure everyone understands that, because Taiwan is next.

And it is not our job, obligation or even business telling Russia how to run itself, either. If they want to be a fucked up dictatorship, that's their problem and also their right as a sovereign nation. But they can be a fucked up dictatorship inside their own borders, if they please.

[Uzkin]

Of course it's repulsive the way you talk about it. Russia attacked the Ukraine! The only peaceful settlement is Russia fucking off out of Ukraine and Ukraine retaining full sovereignity. And that includes Putin stopping to try and tell Ukraine what to do.

I disagree. My proposition would be more peaceful than yours. If agreement was made, it would allow for the hostilities (and, therefore, casualties) to stop quickly. Whereas your idea cannot realistically actualize until a lot more fighting, killing, and destruction has taken place.

[Gaidax]

Because UA is currently not protected by Article 5. But if it was, would NATO ignore Article 5 in case of an attack against UA? I'd say it is very binding; Biden himself has said the US is fully committed to A 5.

It won't be protected either, because as simple as that - Ukraine is just not worth the risks involved for NATO members.

You literally have Biden tell you that open text, I'm not sure what else do you want.

And again it's all silly talk anyway, because only a complete idiot will give up weapons and army after this for promises of "we will invoke Article 5, trust us bros".

They already had that shit back in 90s.

[MCMLXXXII]

Because UA is currently not protected by Article 5. But if it was, would NATO ignore Article 5 in case of an attack against UA? I'd say it is very binding; Biden himself has said the US is fully committed to A 5.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO and even without this war they wouldn't be any time soon. That shit takes a lot of time and one of the many requirements is that there should be no internal conflict. Guess what happened in 2014? The Donbas situation was labeled as internal conflict.

But to answer your hypothetical question. NATO would have intervened if Ukraine was a member. I'm even willing to bet that putin wouldn't invade Ukraine if they were.

[Mihalik]

I disagree. My proposition would be more peaceful than yours. If agreement was made, it would allow for the hostilities (and, therefore, casualties) to stop quickly. Whereas your idea cannot realistically actualize until a lot more fighting, killing, and destruction has taken place.

Again. Putin is not fucking interested in your solution.

That's not what he wants. He is in it for the subjugation of the Ukrainian state and people and for territorial annexations.

He and his state propaganda apparatus explicitly stated so much.

[Slant]

I disagree. My proposition would be more peaceful than yours. If agreement was made, it would allow for the hostilities (and, therefore, casualties) to stop quickly. Whereas your idea cannot realistically actualize until a lot more fighting, killing, and destruction has taken place.

I don't give a shit about Russian casualties. And you know what would be even more peaceful than your bullshit "agreement"? If Russia fucked off into their own country. Today. I'm done with you, I have spent enough time with Putinistas on this forum to know one when I see one. Nothing you say is of any value to anyone here. If this happened on Twitter, your account would probably get banned within a few hours.

- - - Updated - - -

Ukraine isn't part of NATO and even without this war they wouldn't be any time soon. That shit takes a lot of time and one of the many requirements is that there should be no internal conflict. Guess what happened in 2014? The Donbas situation was labeled as internal conflict.

But to answer your hypothetical question. NATO would have intervened if Ukraine was a member. I'm even willing to bet that putin wouldn't invade Ukraine if they were.

You can bet your ass if Putin so much as spits on the territory of the baltic states, NATO would step in. That's the entire premise of the alliance, the only reason for it to exist. If they don't step in and defend every single member state, NATO would fall apart within days.

[Uzkin]

But to answer your hypothetical question. NATO would have intervened if Ukraine was a member. I'm even willing to bet that putin wouldn't invade Ukraine if they were.

There you go. That's why my proposition might work. Article 5 is a good safety guarantee.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't give a shit about Russian casualties. And you know what would be even more peaceful than your bullshit "agreement"? If Russia fucked off into their own country. Today. I'm done with you, I have spent enough time with Putinistas on this forum to know one when I see one. Nothing you say is of any value to anyone here. If this happened on Twitter, your account would probably get banned within a few hours.

Lol. /10chars

[Mihalik]

There you go. That's why my proposition might work. Article 5 is a good safety guarantee.

Again for like the 5th fucking time.

VLADIMIR FUCKING PUTIN DOESN'T FUCKING GIVE A SINGLE FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR PROPOSITION. THE DEMILITARIZATION OF UKRAINE IS NOT HIS OBJECTIVE. ITS ABOUT EMPIRE BUILDING.

[Gaidax]

There you go. That's why my proposition might work. Article 5 is a good safety guarantee.

Of course, you just conveniently skipped about 2 dozens steps before that can even be a thing, where pretty much all the sides in it will tell you to "nope the fuck outta here".

But you be you.

/shrug