Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious

I was thinking about this. Ukraine should do some sort of Panama Canal/Hong Kong lease arrangement for Sevastpol. Something like that might be the best bad case scenario.

Am I correct that the annexation of Crimea was precipitated, in part, by Ukraine's intention to break the long-standing lease signed with the Russians that allowed them to station military forces in Sevastpol?

No. It appears that this is what happened

1997 - Treaty dividing the Soviet fleet etc. Russia given a lease until 2017.
2008 - Ukraine PM says it wont extended.
2010 - pro-Russia govt elected (Manafort's people) and new treaty signed. This happened almost immediately after the election. This extended the lease until 2042 with a 5 year renewal in exchange for discounted nat gas. Very contentious ratification vote in Ukrainian parliament.
2014 - Russia annexes and immediately cancels treaty.

Thx for your response. In 2008, why did the Ukrainian PM indicate that the lease wouldn't be extended? What was the motivation? And why was the vote in 2010 so contentious? Hopefully this wasn't the result of the US Government trying to guide the outcome.

The fact that there was such much debate within Ukraine regarding the lease probably struck a nerve in the Kremlin given that the port is of great strategic importance to Russia.

No idea what happened in 2008 but I'm guessing the Russian invasion of Georgia might have had something to do with it. It was also completely within their right. Hong Kong and the Panama Canal both transferred peacefully when their leases were up.

The 2010 ratification was contentious because it happened right after the election which was super close and controversial. It was then rammed through Parliament without debate and was arguably unconstitutional.

Doesn't have anything to do with the US, except for Manafort's involvement in the 2010 election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.

If Ukraine didn't get western support, Russia would have won and massacred even more of their people than they already have.

What? From the looks of it Russia had plenty of opportunity to massacre 100s of thousands of Ukrainians already, but they haven't . Explain this. If this were ethnic cleansing civilian casualties would be through the roof.

Mariupol and a few other cities are full of mass graves of civilians slaughtered by Russia. Peaceful villages have been completely leveled by indiscrimiate Russian artillery shelling. And even now Russia continues to randomly lob hundreds of missiles at Kyiv and other cities hitting one civilian target after another. Stop candy coating this. The only reason hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians have not been slaughtered yet is because of the incompetence of Russia's military planning versus the fierce determination and western help on the side of Ukraine.

Stop candy coating Russia's vile actions.

+1
and Ukrainian refugees who fled.

This is what people are candy coating, a Russian war crime, two Russian soldiers rape a Ukrainian woman repeatedly, in front of her crying 4 year old child, after they murdered her husband/her child's father.

Look, nobody is candy coating anything here or arguing that Russia's actions aren't vile. You have vivid imagination, find another outlet for this, because it's not helping your arguments. It is a war and atrocities do happen during the times of lawlessness, it's stupid to assume that it won't happen at all. Ukrainian army is also putting civilians in harms way with their tactics of urban warfare where they position their ant-tank crews in the residential buildings and other non-military structures. It is what attracts shelling and kills civilians too. I suppose you read this article in Washington Post?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/28/ukraine-kyiv-russia-civilians/


"But Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes, said human rights activists and international humanitarian law experts. Last week, the Biden administration formally declared that Moscow has committed crimes against humanity."
“If there is military equipment there and [the Russians] are saying we are launching at this military equipment, it undermines an assertion that they are attacking intentionally civilian objects and civilians,” said Richard Weir, a researcher in Human Rights Watch’s crisis and conflict division, who is working in Ukraine."



I am still going to hold an opinion that this isn't ethnic cleansing conflict where the goal is to exterminate specific ethnicity. If you claim that it is, then you had been living under a rock and have no knowledge at all about real ethnic cleansing conflicts of which there are plentiful examples around the world. This is a different war which doesn't want to necessarily maximize civilian casualties, but where casualties are impossible to avoid. Just read the article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.

If Ukraine didn't get western support, Russia would have won and massacred even more of their people than they already have.

What? From the looks of it Russia had plenty of opportunity to massacre 100s of thousands of Ukrainians already, but they haven't . Explain this. If this were ethnic cleansing civilian casualties would be through the roof.

and here is a thread for the bloodthirsty you, who finds civilian casualties not sufficient

Ukraine prosecutors have already cataloged over 2,000 Russian war crimes and counting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.

If Ukraine didn't get western support, Russia would have won and massacred even more of their people than they already have.

What? From the looks of it Russia had plenty of opportunity to massacre 100s of thousands of Ukrainians already, but they haven't . Explain this. If this were ethnic cleansing civilian casualties would be through the roof.

Mariupol and a few other cities are full of mass graves of civilians slaughtered by Russia. Peaceful villages have been completely leveled by indiscrimiate Russian artillery shelling. And even now Russia continues to randomly lob hundreds of missiles at Kyiv and other cities hitting one civilian target after another. Stop candy coating this. The only reason hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians have not been slaughtered yet is because of the incompetence of Russia's military planning versus the fierce determination and western help on the side of Ukraine.

Stop candy coating Russia's vile actions.

+1
and Ukrainian refugees who fled.

This is what people are candy coating, a Russian war crime, two Russian soldiers rape a Ukrainian woman repeatedly, in front of her crying 4 year old child, after they murdered her husband/her child's father.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious

I was thinking about this. Ukraine should do some sort of Panama Canal/Hong Kong lease arrangement for Sevastpol. Something like that might be the best bad case scenario.

Am I correct that the annexation of Crimea was precipitated, in part, by Ukraine's intention to break the long-standing lease signed with the Russians that allowed them to station military forces in Sevastpol?

No. It appears that this is what happened

1997 - Treaty dividing the Soviet fleet etc. Russia given a lease until 2017.
2008 - Ukraine PM says it wont extended.
2010 - pro-Russia govt elected (Manafort's people) and new treaty signed. This happened almost immediately after the election. This extended the lease until 2042 with a 5 year renewal in exchange for discounted nat gas. Very contentious ratification vote in Ukrainian parliament.
2014 - Russia annexes and immediately cancels treaty.

Thx for your response. In 2008, why did the Ukrainian PM indicate that the lease wouldn't be extended? What was the motivation? And why was the vote in 2010 so contentious? Hopefully this wasn't the result of the US Government trying to guide the outcome.

The fact that there was such much debate within Ukraine regarding the lease probably struck a nerve in the Kremlin given that the port is of great strategic importance to Russia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious

I was thinking about this. Ukraine should do some sort of Panama Canal/Hong Kong lease arrangement for Sevastpol. Something like that might be the best bad case scenario.

If we are being kissingerian and cold eyed about it, Ukraine will be lucky to have any Black Sea access after this is done.

Putin might as well as take the entire north coast of the Black Sea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

Huh? Ukraine was neutral.

Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.

Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.

On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.

"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.

Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign nation. It can make whatever agreements it wants, with whoever it wants. Russia's invasion is unjustifiable, criminal, illegal, and unprovoked.

I'm not arguing that the invasion is a horrible thing. I'm just trying to understand how a peace deal arrived at after this war is over might differ from the deal that Putin wanted prior to the war.

Prior to the war, Putin emphasized "neutrality": he wanted Ukraine to agree to never join NATO. Ukraine resisted this idea. Now, it seems that Ukraine may be willing to agree to neutrality. So what has Ukraine accomplished?

Ukraine accomplished unifying the west, attracting tons of FDI post war, and accelerated links to eu

Ukraine gave up: land

Ukraine won this trade. In the 21st century, fdi and people matter more than land.

Ukraine will attract a quasi Marshall plan from the west that would’ve never come if the war didn’t happen.

On a utilitarian perspective it’s an overall win to give up land for a massive windfall in dollars and human capital enhancing programs

Who will pay for the Marshall plan?

The west.

Zelensky has western leaders wrapped around his pinky for the most part

Ruble is almost back to pre war levels

Lol sanctions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious

I was thinking about this. Ukraine should do some sort of Panama Canal/Hong Kong lease arrangement for Sevastpol. Something like that might be the best bad case scenario.

Am I correct that the annexation of Crimea was precipitated, in part, by Ukraine's intention to break the long-standing lease signed with the Russians that allowed them to station military forces in Sevastpol?

No. It appears that this is what happened

1997 - Treaty dividing the Soviet fleet etc. Russia given a lease until 2017.
2008 - Ukraine PM says it wont extended.
2010 - pro-Russia govt elected (Manafort's people) and new treaty signed. This happened almost immediately after the election. This extended the lease until 2042 with a 5 year renewal in exchange for discounted nat gas. Very contentious ratification vote in Ukrainian parliament.
2014 - Russia annexes and immediately cancels treaty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.

If Ukraine didn't get western support, Russia would have won and massacred even more of their people than they already have.

What? From the looks of it Russia had plenty of opportunity to massacre 100s of thousands of Ukrainians already, but they haven't . Explain this. If this were ethnic cleansing civilian casualties would be through the roof.

and here is a thread for the bloodthirsty you, who finds civilian casualties not sufficient

This is a good thread to understand the war from Ukrainian perspective

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.

If Ukraine didn't get western support, Russia would have won and massacred even more of their people than they already have.

What? From the looks of it Russia had plenty of opportunity to massacre 100s of thousands of Ukrainians already, but they haven't . Explain this. If this were ethnic cleansing civilian casualties would be through the roof.

Mariupol and a few other cities are full of mass graves of civilians slaughtered by Russia. Peaceful villages have been completely leveled by indiscrimiate Russian artillery shelling. And even now Russia continues to randomly lob hundreds of missiles at Kyiv and other cities hitting one civilian target after another. Stop candy coating this. The only reason hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians have not been slaughtered yet is because of the incompetence of Russia's military planning versus the fierce determination and western help on the side of Ukraine.

Stop candy coating Russia's vile actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.

If Ukraine didn't get western support, Russia would have won and massacred even more of their people than they already have.

What? From the looks of it Russia had plenty of opportunity to massacre 100s of thousands of Ukrainians already, but they haven't . Explain this. If this were ethnic cleansing civilian casualties would be through the roof.

Too busy dealing with their own deserters and offing their own Commanders for catastrophic incompetence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.

If Ukraine didn't get western support, Russia would have won and massacred even more of their people than they already have.

What? From the looks of it Russia had plenty of opportunity to massacre 100s of thousands of Ukrainians already, but they haven't . Explain this. If this were ethnic cleansing civilian casualties would be through the roof.

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are attempting to apply reasoning skills to Putin.

He doesn't think like you. He knows one thing.... Power. He has wanted the Soviet Union reconstituted for years. It gives him more power.
That is what this is all about. It doesn't matter what Ukraine does. Didn't matter what Crimea did.

Putin has a goal. That is what this is about.

This. Ukraine has been a thorn in putin’s throat for a long time.