US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


She's fine. The opposition always parses words of incumbents, because that's literally their JOB. We did the same for the previous incumbents - there was a LOT more material

She misspoke. Wasn’t she a former prosecutor? She should know better.

No kidding. Just like a defender in court, Putin gets to spin every single word any US politician/diplomat/... His propaganda machine can and will slice/dice every phrase any of them makes. She gave him a big one to use whenever/however he wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

They dont need to be in NATO. Get virtually the same benefits by being in the EU. It'd be a win win and is the obvious compromise that allows Russia to save face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

They dont need to be in NATO. Get virtually the same benefits by being in the EU. It'd be a win win and is the obvious compromise that allows Russia to save face.

At this point not being in Nato and demilitarization as per putin means annihilation of Ukraine - If not in this war, then in a future war 5, 8 or 10 years down the road. It’s not a viable option for Ukraine and not worth fighting and the sacrifices it is now making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

They dont need to be in NATO. Get virtually the same benefits by being in the EU. It'd be a win win and is the obvious compromise that allows Russia to save face.

At this point not being in Nato and demilitarization as per putin means annihilation of Ukraine - If not in this war, then in a future war 5, 8 or 10 years down the road. It’s not a viable option for Ukraine and not worth fighting and the sacrifices it is now making.

DP. Many Ukrainians would rather die than lives under Russia’s thumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

They dont need to be in NATO. Get virtually the same benefits by being in the EU. It'd be a win win and is the obvious compromise that allows Russia to save face.

At this point not being in Nato and demilitarization as per putin means annihilation of Ukraine - If not in this war, then in a future war 5, 8 or 10 years down the road. It’s not a viable option for Ukraine and not worth fighting and the sacrifices it is now making.

DP. Many Ukrainians would rather die than lives under Russia’s thumb.

Unfortunately, many of them died and many of them will die if this war doesn't stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

They dont need to be in NATO. Get virtually the same benefits by being in the EU. It'd be a win win and is the obvious compromise that allows Russia to save face.

At this point not being in Nato and demilitarization as per putin means annihilation of Ukraine - If not in this war, then in a future war 5, 8 or 10 years down the road. It’s not a viable option for Ukraine and not worth fighting and the sacrifices it is now making.

DP. Many Ukrainians would rather die than lives under Russia’s thumb.

Unfortunately, many of them died and many of them will die if this war doesn't stop.

This war can stop any time. Putin just has to decide to stop slaughtering innocent Ukrainians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

Stuff it, Vlad.

No, PP's correct on NATO. Wrong on all other counts. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine - he believed false intelligence that it would roll over. It didn't, and in the process, Russia has lost all the economic, strategic and reputational gains it had made since the fall of the USSR. Worse, it may indeed, as other PPs explained, be owned by China if China decides to "help".

Ukraine will never be part of NATO in the foreseeable future. That will definitely be part of the face-saving deal struck with Putin. But it will be part of the EU, and it will have won the hearts and mind of the entire free world.
The price is staggering in terms of lives, suffering and sheer destruction. The EU and the USA will spend billions to rebuild. And all they spend will still be NOTHING compared to the losses of Russia over the next decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

Stuff it, Vlad.

No, PP's correct on NATO. Wrong on all other counts. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine - he believed false intelligence that it would roll over. It didn't, and in the process, Russia has lost all the economic, strategic and reputational gains it had made since the fall of the USSR. Worse, it may indeed, as other PPs explained, be owned by China if China decides to "help".

Ukraine will never be part of NATO in the foreseeable future. That will definitely be part of the face-saving deal struck with Putin. But it will be part of the EU, and it will have won the hearts and mind of the entire free world.
The price is staggering in terms of lives, suffering and sheer destruction. The EU and the USA will spend billions to rebuild. And all they spend will still be NOTHING compared to the losses of Russia over the next decades.

Ukraine can never join NATO. Russia can’t get out of Crimea since it claims to have annexed it. The rest of the world still considers Crimea part of Ukraine. If Ukraine joined NATO and invoked Article V then NATO, including America, would have to go to war against Russia. Obviously that can’t be allowed to happen. Once two countries have a nuclear arsenal, war is off the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Azov Battalion is real. Doesn’t mean Putin isn’t a crazy dictator, but it isn’t true that Ukraine has no neo Nazis.

Russia has them too.

Armed battalions with names and all?

Putin has private Nazi-run death squads. Look up Wagner PMC. It's led by Putin's friend Dmitri Utkin, a former Spetznaz officer and known neo-Nazi. Check out Utkin's tattoos - Nazi Reichsadler and SS insignia. He named his company "Wagner" after Hitler's favorite composer. Wagner is Russia's dirty work and private "plausible deniability" military operating in Syria, Central African Republic, Mali and many other hot spots. Wagner currently has hundreds of assassins in Ukraine trying to assassinate the Jewish president of Ukraine, who is the grandson of Holocaust survivors and who was popularly elected by the supposedly Nazi Ukrainians with solid 73% majority.

Zelensky is a grandson of a communist, a Red Army colonel.

Does that make his grandfather not Jewish? Does it change the fact that his grandfather’s father and brothers perished in the Holocaust? What’s your point?

Communists tend to be pointedly unreligious, which is exactly why many Jews fled from communist countries. Religion was forbidden in the USSR. The October Revolution predated WWII.

PP, I am not sure why you are making this point. Zelensky’s grandfather, who was Jewish, fought in World War II with the Soviet army and rose to the level of colonel. He survived - his three brothers and father were killed in the Holocaust. This is a very common WE2 story - Jewish men often joined the only available opposition to Nazis in some areas - The Red Army. Do you think it says something negative about Zelensky’s grandfather or Zelensky that he did that?

Yes, religion was forbidden in the Soviet Union. Yes, many Jews sought to leave Soviet countries. But, since Ukraine voted overwhelmingly in 1991 to leave the Soviet Union, religion has been an accepted part of Ukrainian life. Particularly since the Maidan, there is broad acceptance of all religions even Islam - among the people and between religious leaders. Ukrainians who elected Zelensky knew he was Jewish. Since Zelensky became president he has openly spoken about his family’s Jewish background and commemorated Ukraine’s victory over Naziism.

Ukraine, broadly speaking does not have a lot of neo-Nazis, but because of the war in the Donbas early groups like Azov battalion and Right Sector, received support because they were the early groups to use force to resist Russian efforts to keep control of Ukraine by manipulating Ukrainian politicians. Ukrainians, who were opposed to Russia, saw Right Sector and Azov as the only groups available to support. As the Ukrainian Army got more organized itself and created a Territorial Defense, it folded Azov into the command structure. At the time this was seen as a way to moderate neo-Nazi support and control and eventually weed neo-Nazis out. I think that’s been somewhat successful, and today’s Ukrainian army has no greater a Nazi problem than any other country in Europe. And certainly not such a Nazi problem that justifies a Russian invasion.

Just bumping your excellent explanation, PP. Thank you for taking the time to inform any posters that were unconvinced there are trolls here and on other threads, who wish to derail the conversation and fracture US unity during this conflict.

Also a reminder that you can use the report button any time you suspect that posts are created with the specific goal of spreading lies to confuse readers and deflect blame on the wrong people.

While technically correct, I'm not quite sure why you're using this particular thread of conversation to make that point. It's completely normal for politicians to overstate their sense belonging to certain groups or causes if they think it will draw in international support. In this case, the Ukrainian political establishment is motivated to disassociate themselves with the perception of Nazism, wants to associate itself with oppressed group, and would probably love to have Israel more strongly supportive of its cause. Yes, PP notes that the Zelensky's story is completely reconcilable, but PP's PP was also completely correct in noting that there's an objective reason to question whether he's "very" Jewish or that the Russian army would be targeting him on religious grounds.

Also, please spare the melodrama. Just because we're supposed to side with a leader doesn't mean that there's a societal expectation to consider them a sincere or likeable leader.

You seem to be saying that Zelensky is “not really Jewish” or “not Jewish enough” or that he is “overstating” that he is Jewish or “just saying he is Jewish to get Israel’s support” or that the “Ukrainian political establishment is associating itself with Zelensky in order to disassociate itself with Naziism”??!!

Wow. Pretty anti-semitic to judge someone as to whether or not they are Jewish enough, yet at the same time think that that person is Jewish enough that he can call on other Jewish world leaders (cuz you know, Jews stick together and run the world).

Here’s some reality - Zelensky won with something like 70+ percent of the vote precisely because he wasn’t an establishment politician and therefore people believed him when he promised to take on corruption in society. Your idea that he is some kind of fake Jew installed in power by the elites in order to fake out the world as to the degree of real control Nazis exert over Ukraine is conspiracy nonsense.

BTW, no one is suggesting Russia is targeting because he is Jewish. People are saying Putin’s description of Ukraine as a country run by Nazis is ridiculous when 70+% voted for a Jewish candidate.

Russia is targeting Zelensky because he is steadfastly defending what the Ukrainian people have fought and voted for from the 1991 vote to leave the USSR through the Orange Revolution through the Maidan through the defense of Donbas and through multiple elections in the past 10 years — a European future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

Stuff it, Vlad.

No, PP's correct on NATO. Wrong on all other counts. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine - he believed false intelligence that it would roll over. It didn't, and in the process, Russia has lost all the economic, strategic and reputational gains it had made since the fall of the USSR. Worse, it may indeed, as other PPs explained, be owned by China if China decides to "help".

Ukraine will never be part of NATO in the foreseeable future. That will definitely be part of the face-saving deal struck with Putin. But it will be part of the EU, and it will have won the hearts and mind of the entire free world.
The price is staggering in terms of lives, suffering and sheer destruction. The EU and the USA will spend billions to rebuild. And all they spend will still be NOTHING compared to the losses of Russia over the next decades.

Ukraine can never join NATO. Russia can’t get out of Crimea since it claims to have annexed it. The rest of the world still considers Crimea part of Ukraine. If Ukraine joined NATO and invoked Article V then NATO, including America, would have to go to war against Russia. Obviously that can’t be allowed to happen. Once two countries have a nuclear arsenal, war is off the table.

Most likely the accord that is being reached (or so it's been reported), is to open humanitarian corridors, real ones, and discuss an end to hostilities provided Ukraine does not join NATO, and recognizes the separatist regions as well as Crimea, plus or minus a land corridor from Russia to Crimea (Mariupol region). This means Russia don't gain any land beyond what it already had (except if it adds that tiny land corridor), but it saves face. I hope any accord between the two countries is accompanied by CONTINUED, UNRELENTING, CRUSHING SANCTIONS from most of the world. Otherwise Russia will just do it again in a few years. It has to pay a steep price for the innocents it has massacred.

[Anonymous]

^ under the terms of such an accord, Ukraine would still be part of the EU if it wishes to. NATO doesn't want Ukraine in its ranks, but the EU is fine with Ukraine membership. It takes years to do, and they've just announced their application.

[Anonymous]

The most entertaining part of this is Putin has already reached out to China to bail him out.

And russia now falls to like #50 on global relevance. I bet maybe 100 out of 6000 nukes even work or could launch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most entertaining part of this is Putin has already reached out to China to bail him out.

And russia now falls to like #50 on global relevance. I bet maybe 100 out of 6000 nukes even work or could launch.

+1. Nearly three weeks and Ukraine is still standing. Putin is a foolish old man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

Stuff it, Vlad.

No, PP's correct on NATO. Wrong on all other counts. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine - he believed false intelligence that it would roll over. It didn't, and in the process, Russia has lost all the economic, strategic and reputational gains it had made since the fall of the USSR. Worse, it may indeed, as other PPs explained, be owned by China if China decides to "help".

Ukraine will never be part of NATO in the foreseeable future. That will definitely be part of the face-saving deal struck with Putin. But it will be part of the EU, and it will have won the hearts and mind of the entire free world.
The price is staggering in terms of lives, suffering and sheer destruction. The EU and the USA will spend billions to rebuild. And all they spend will still be NOTHING compared to the losses of Russia over the next decades.

Ukraine can never join NATO. Russia can’t get out of Crimea since it claims to have annexed it. The rest of the world still considers Crimea part of Ukraine. If Ukraine joined NATO and invoked Article V then NATO, including America, would have to go to war against Russia. Obviously that can’t be allowed to happen. Once two countries have a nuclear arsenal, war is off the table.

Most likely the accord that is being reached (or so it's been reported), is to open humanitarian corridors, real ones, and discuss an end to hostilities provided Ukraine does not join NATO, and recognizes the separatist regions as well as Crimea, plus or minus a land corridor from Russia to Crimea (Mariupol region). This means Russia don't gain any land beyond what it already had (except if it adds that tiny land corridor), but it saves face. I hope any accord between the two countries is accompanied by CONTINUED, UNRELENTING, CRUSHING SANCTIONS from most of the world. Otherwise Russia will just do it again in a few years. It has to pay a steep price for the innocents it has massacred.

Yeah, that's not happening. That "land corridor" you mention would be almost their entire coast. Maybe a referendum in Donbas and Crimea but don't see how Ukraine could agree to give Russia an actual win. It will have to be some sort of cyprus style mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble seeing an ending to this conflict other than for Ukraine to agree to maintain neutrality in the future -- that is, to stay outside of NATO.

I admire Zelensky's bravery. But I wonder if, in the end, he will simply have to agree to roughly the same deal he could have obtained prior to the invasion.

It isn't just Putin who doesn't want Ukraine in NATO -- according to William Burns, it is virtually the entire Russian government.

Stuff it, Vlad.

No, PP's correct on NATO. Wrong on all other counts. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine - he believed false intelligence that it would roll over. It didn't, and in the process, Russia has lost all the economic, strategic and reputational gains it had made since the fall of the USSR. Worse, it may indeed, as other PPs explained, be owned by China if China decides to "help".

Ukraine will never be part of NATO in the foreseeable future. That will definitely be part of the face-saving deal struck with Putin. But it will be part of the EU, and it will have won the hearts and mind of the entire free world.
The price is staggering in terms of lives, suffering and sheer destruction. The EU and the USA will spend billions to rebuild. And all they spend will still be NOTHING compared to the losses of Russia over the next decades.

Ukraine can never join NATO. Russia can’t get out of Crimea since it claims to have annexed it. The rest of the world still considers Crimea part of Ukraine. If Ukraine joined NATO and invoked Article V then NATO, including America, would have to go to war against Russia. Obviously that can’t be allowed to happen. Once two countries have a nuclear arsenal, war is off the table.

Most likely the accord that is being reached (or so it's been reported), is to open humanitarian corridors, real ones, and discuss an end to hostilities provided Ukraine does not join NATO, and recognizes the separatist regions as well as Crimea, plus or minus a land corridor from Russia to Crimea (Mariupol region). This means Russia don't gain any land beyond what it already had (except if it adds that tiny land corridor), but it saves face. I hope any accord between the two countries is accompanied by CONTINUED, UNRELENTING, CRUSHING SANCTIONS from most of the world. Otherwise Russia will just do it again in a few years. It has to pay a steep price for the innocents it has massacred.

Yeah, that's not happening. That "land corridor" you mention would be almost their entire coast. Maybe a referendum in Donbas and Crimea but don't see how Ukraine could agree to give Russia an actual win. It will have to be some sort of cyprus style mess.

I know. But there's only so much room to navigate. Under all the bravado, Zelensky knows it's either keep fighting to utter destruction or accept some loss of territory. Of course he'll fight to keep the land corridor, but hemight be forced to give it up.