Europe at War

[drogulus]

Zelensky suggests to Biden that global peace summit be convened

    This could give Putin an out if he wants one. Certainly the US wants precisely that, not only because war is bad, but chaos in the wake of war is super bad when nukes are involved.

    Getting Putin to the "yes negotiations" point might take many more drunken conscripts dying and running away first, as well as more boom boom on Russian territory.
   

[Florestan]

This could give Putin an out if he wants one. Certainly the US wants precisely that, not only because war is bad, but chaos in the wake of war is super bad when nukes are involved.

    Getting Putin to the "yes negotiations" point might take many more drunken conscripts dying and running away first, as well as more boom boom on Russian territory.
   

That very Pilsudski map you posted shows that, although Czechoslovakia and Poland were victims of aggression (the latter, twice so), the peace agreed upon after WWII made them lose territories --- in the benefit of Ukraine, no less. Moreover, Hungarian and Romanian territories also ended up in Ukraine as well. Any notion that today peace can be achieved without Ukraine renouncing some territories (Crimea first and foremost, then a terrestrial patch linking the peninsula with Russia) is delusional.

[Fëanor]

That very Pilsudski map you posted shows that, although Czechoslovakia and Poland were victims of aggression (the latter, twice so), the peace agreed upon after WWII made them lose territories --- in the benefit of Ukraine, no less. Moreover, Hungarian and Romanian territories also ended up in Ukraine as well. Any notion that today peace can be achieved without Ukraine renouncing some territories (Crimea first and foremost, then a terrestrial patch linking the peninsula with Russia) is delusional.

So ... if Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania have a problem Ukraine, let them can take it up with Ukraine in due course. However they should NOT leverage the Russian invasion situation to bolster their positions.  (So far there is no hint that they would do so -- the Russian threat is acknowledge to be the greater issue.)

Personally I've said they might forfeit Crimea on the basis that it was added to the Ukraine SSR only in 1954.  OTOH this wouldn't satisfy Putin who wants, (at minimum), guarantees that Ukraine not drift into the EU or NATO spheres.

[Florestan]

So ... if Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania have a problem Ukraine, let them can take it up with Ukraine in due course. However they should NOT leverage the Russian invasion situation to bolster their positions.  (So far there is no hint that they would do so -- the Russian threat is acknowledge to be the greater issue.)

And that is precisely one important part of my point: Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania, although they lost territories to Ukraine, have no problem with that, on the contrary, they are staunch supporters of Ukraine (Hungary is a special case) --- for the very simple reason that a buffer state between them and Russia is infinitely more preferable to a direct border.

The other important part is that Ukraine should adopt the same rational and reasonable stance: given that the WWII peace treaty gave them (albeit indirectly) territories who were not of their own in 1939, they should be prepared and willing to give up some territories (one of them certainly not their own until 1954, ie Crimea) if they want peace.

[Todd]

Merkel's confession could be a pretext for an International Tribunal

I'm guessing this is all just Russian disinformation.  The Russians basically enjoy omnipotence in the propaganda space.


Merkel admits failures on defense policy; Former German chancellor wants negotiated solution to the Ukraine war.

Merkel expects a negotiated settlement and she continues to defend her energy deals with Russia.  She is clearly a Russian stooge, incapable of making decisions, and she clearly has no idea what is happening in the world.  Fortunately, no one, and certainly no one on GMG, was beguiled by her boundless charisma into thinking she was an effective, significant, and intelligent leader.

[Madiel]

Negotiations good. 

War bad.

Hope that helps.

Maybe you should have told Putin that before he started one.

Your repeated desire that the side that DIDN'T invade come to the negotiating table now that they seem to be winning reads like you dropped onto the planet quite recently. But we know you were here from the start. We have the posts to prove it. Our memory is a lot better than yours seems to be.

[Madiel]

The other important part is that Ukraine should adopt the same rational and reasonable stance: given that the WWII peace treaty gave them (albeit indirectly) territories who were not of their own in 1939, they should be prepared and willing to give up some territories (one of them certainly not their own until 1954, ie Crimea) if they want peace.

Can we not treat 1954 like it's recent? It's not. People have lived entire lives in the Crimean part of Ukraine.

This house wasn't my own until 11 months ago. How LONG it's been mine is not a relevant question, how I got it and whether everyone else accepts the method is the issue. And Russia signed that it accepted the border.

Conflict is never going to end so long as people reach back to whatever point in history suits them. Putin wants to invoke Kievan Rus. There has to be a resolution, a finality, that things can't be undone. I got possession of this house in January. Ukraine got possession of Crimea in 1954, and it is Ukraine's. It would be Ukraine's if they got it in 1854, or 2009.

[Que]

Incorrect across the board.

First, unconditional surrender is a rare outcome of any war, and as a matter of policy the most prominent global example is WWII, which again provides nothing but a false analogy.  Countries and other political entities have lost territory as part of war for millennia.  It is the way of the world.  It is part of the best potential outcome in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

So your best outcome is Ukraine to submit to Russia's territorial demands, and probably other demands as well. I can't say this reply changed my mind. This reeks of a 1938 scenario. We really can't afford to reward the aggressor here, that would be a continuous future threat to peace in Europe.

Second, war is bad.  That anyone should have to repeat that or defend that notion demonstrates how people can rationalize anything.  I do openly acknowledge that war is an intrinsic part of the international system, always has been, and always will be.  I merely seek to eliminate US involvement in wars that do not threaten US security or interests.  The Russo-Ukrainian War does not threaten either.  It is a very bad thing that many thousands have died and many thousands more may very well die, but from an American perspective, it does not matter.  We should not be involved.  The same goes for all other current wars around the globe - even the ones the US had a hand in starting or prolonging.  To aid in the decrease of US involvement in wars around the world, the US should reduce its global military presence, starting with Europe; decrease the size of its military; decrease the military/paramilitary budgets of its intelligence agencies; cut back on and hopefully eliminate arms sales (another area where the USA is #1); eliminate the sharing of technologies with all but a tiny number of allies (ie, the English speaking ones); and withdraw from any international organizations that attempt to adjudicate or manage global conflicts.  At the very the least, the US should not fund such institutions.  With the exceptions of WWII and 9/11, the US has engaged only in wars of choice since 1865, and even those ultimately could have been avoided, the disastrous war in Afghanistan, especially.  (It is telling that the DOD falsely describes the latter as a "necessary war of self-defense".)  People around the world really ought not to go around slaughtering each other, but they will.  So what?  The US need not be involved every time, if at all.

What you're saying is that this war is bad... for the US. Got it, and no surprise there either. It is happens to be bad for Ukraine as well, but it didn't start it and it is fighting for its survival. Did the US govt made this fighting chance possible? Yes, in fact it did. Did previous US govts engage in several desastrous wars in the past decades? Yes. Is this the same? No.

As a European, I am well aware that this might be the last time that the US is going to save our skin. And we got extremely lucky that Biden got elected instead of Trump, who would have dropped us like a  hot brick.

[Todd]

This reeks of a 1938 scenario.

On the internet, everything is always like WWII.  This is well established.

What you're saying is that this war is bad... for the US.

No, war is bad for everyone.  The US should not be involved in the Russo-Ukrainian War.  The United States as a country has no security or economic interests at stake in Ukraine.  Ukrainian democracy or territorial integrity just don't cut it as material interests.  But, you see, this war is actually good for some Americans.  Arms manufacturers, energy firms, careerists in various government agencies that manage war, they all benefit.  This military-industrial complex first described by Ike is what actively and publicly seeks influence and guides America's militaristic foreign policy.  Then various people around the world actively support said policies and even celebrate and defend policies first forwarded by George W Bush.  That has been happening on this forum. 

You are correct that this war is not the same as the disastrous wars the US has engaged in this century.  It is much, much worse.  It could literally end up being for all the marbles because Russia is a powerful country capable of destroying the world.  Ukraine isn't worth it.

As a European, I am well aware that this might be the last time that the US is going to save our skin.

The US should cut Europe off right now, today, December 13, 2022.  It won't, but it should.

[Florestan]

Conflict is never going to end so long as people reach back to whatever point in history suits them.

Yes, agreed, precisely my point. Ask Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania --- all of them have been told that their accession to NATO depends on them not having any territorial contention / pretention whatsoever with / over their neighbors. We all willingly complied, even if it implied giving up for good territories that never ever belonged to Ukraine. We all willingly comply with it today.

Putin wants to invoke Kievan Rus.

And Zelensky wants to invoke post-WWII, post-1954 Ukraine.

Which means both Putin and Zelensky claim territories which at one time or another did not belong to their current states.

What Is to Be Done? --- Chernyshevsky's question remain unanswered.

[Florestan]

I mean, at the very least Crimea was never ever Ukrainian territory before the arbitrary decision of Khrushtchev, no matter that Zelensky may twist and turn history as much as he wants.

And now I ask you, people of genuinely good will: if Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania gave up for good territories which belonged to them prior to WWII in favor of Ukraine in exchange for accession to NATO, why should Ukraine insist, and be supported,  that no peace can be signed unless Ukraine's territory after WWII is secured?

[JBS]

As a matter of simple geography, Crimea is an appendage of Ukraine. From Russia to Crimea requires either a bridge over water or passage through Ukrainian terrority.

Making Crimea an independent state might work, although it would depend on Ukraine for potable water and land access to the rest of the world.

[Florestan]

Making Crimea an independent state might work,

Might work my a$$...

Crimea was never ever part of Ukraine until Khrushtchev --- damned be his memory!

[Madiel]

Yes, agreed, precisely my point. Ask Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania --- all of them have been told that their accession to NATO depends on them not having any territorial contention / pretention whatsoever with / over their neighbors. We all willingly complied, even if it implied giving up for good territories that never ever belonged to Ukraine. We all willingly comply with it today.

And Zelensky wants to invoke post-WWII, post-1954 Ukraine.

Which means both Putin and Zelensky claim territories which at one time or another did not belong to their current states.

What Is to Be Done? --- Chernyshevsky's question remain unanswered.

Your argument is ridiculous. If you can't see the difference between current possession and past possession, you can't see the difference between me claiming the house I bought this year and me claiming the house I sold this year.

Both of them are houses that at one time or another did not belong to me.

[Todd]

Making Crimea an independent state might work, although it would depend on Ukraine for potable water and land access to the rest of the world.

Might work my a$$...

It is a very positive development that people are starting to imagine the possibilities of carving up Ukraine for peace.

It is the only path forward.

Lust for unconditional surrender leads to WWIII.

[LKB]

It is a very positive development that people are starting to imagine the possibilities of carving up Ukraine for peace.

It is the only path forward.

Lust for unconditional surrender leads to WWIII.

Balls.

No matter how he threatens, or how his media slaves try to scare the world, Putin won't use nukes - period.

What he will do is keep rattling the nuclear sabre, in hopes of keeping the West off balance.

The West should stay the course. Help Ukraine in the anti-air domain, and continue supplying the needed artillery and ammunition which will allow them to eventually prevail.

Ukraine should concede nothing. Allowing Putin any sort of territorial victory simply sets the stage for another land grab elsewhere, as long as he's in power.

There are worse things than war. Slavery and cultural genocide, for starters.

[Madiel]

Anyone know Todd's age? How many years does it take to acquire that many Beethoven cycles?

Stop feeding the troll. I know I have to take my own advice sometimes, but THAT kind of post makes it really obvious he is trolling.

[LKB]

Meh.  Churchill said something along those lines.  Late middle age and elderly posters cowering behind their keyboards carry no weight.  Ukraine ain't worth shit.  It's OK if Ukraine is in enslaved.

Just quoting the above in case he sobers up and deletes it.

[Que]

Might work my a$$...

Crimea was never ever part of Ukraine until Khrushtchev --- damned be his memory!

I'm pretty sure Putin could ultimately have kept Crimea. But he was greedy...

Now the issue with Crimea is the risk of rewarding aggression.
Since loyalty to Ukraine is the lowest in Crimea, an option would be to let Russia have it - after a referendum in a couple of years, if it is prepared to make large concessions on other issues.

But before it comes to that, it might even be necessary for Ukraine to retake Crimea first, to force Russia's hand at the negotiating table.

[Fëanor]

Just quoting the above in case he {Todd} sobers up and deletes it.

Ultimately it isn't just Ukraine, it's the whole of the former Soviet empire, (at least), and along the way, a greatly weakened EU and NATO.

In Todd's inverted reality the USA is the hegemon that needs to be weaken.  Even supposing this were reality, who would you prefer as Emperor, Biden or Putin?