Skua

Well it is. But that’s the point

I’m sure it is, but Zelenskyy is an adult and capable of making his own decisions either way and I don’t see what leverage the US could possibly have to force him to keep fighting. What are they going to do if he makes peace, stop giving Ukraine weapons for the war they aren’t fighting any more? Even if the US deposed him, Zelenskyy has said openly that he doesn’t want to run the country after the war. Can’t say I blame him, I’d want a holiday too.

Regardless, none of this changes the fact that if you had read more than the headline, you wouldn’t have said “per the article”, would you?

I’m not sure this holds. To me that very delay is the valuable point of negotiation I’m talking about; this war is also costly in lives and materiel for Russia. Being able to eventually outlast Ukraine on that front doesn’t negate that. But I think that’s getting towards too subjective a point for us to find common ground on.

Read the fucking article. The US response was “it’s not our choice to make”

I don’t understand your reasoning behind:

Your leverage point is moot in my opinion.

If arming Ukraine does not substantially impact Ukraine’s ability to fight, how does it prolong the war? In your assessment, Ukraine would be forced to make peace at the same point either way. Could you expand on that?

• 1: Enough that there aren’t mass desertions at the front lines.

• 2a: Continuing to fight typically has 2:1 support in what polling I have seen. My country’s governnment is absolute dogshit, but if Russia invaded my country you’re damn fucking right I’d want to fight them about it even with our shit government.

• 2b: Your article assumes a US coup, it does not show that there was a US coup. It is not weird that the American embassy wanted to negotiate with potential new leaders, doing so does not mean they masterminded a coup, and Zelenskyy was never even mentioned in the Nuland-Pyatt call. There have been two elections since then. It is also not difficult to believe that the protests against Yanukovych were legitimate considering his massive unilateral lurch in policy just beforehand.

• 2c: Absolutely shocking to suspend pro-Russia parties while literally being invaded by Russia. It should be noted that the incumbent party has a majority either way and suspending parties did not grant them any power they didn’t already have. Further, the parties suspended represent a minority of the opposition.

• 2d: Sorry to tell you this but fighting a war is actually quite expensive. Is this approach the best one? I have no idea. It hardly seems relevant to what your second point started as. If you’d rather Ukraine didn’t do this, it’s going to need alternative financing, which means more support from its backers, not less.

• 2e: I do think that it should just be gifted, and some of it is. If your preference is that they get nothing at all then Ukraine could equally just refuse the lend-lease. Again, the better solution here is more support, not less.

• 2f: You know Ukraine was a capitalist country before this war started, right? But once again, if you don’t want this to happen, Ukraine needs more unconditional support, not less.

• 3: How much say do you think the US has? This article is literally about Russia trying to get the US to decide on Ukraine’s behalf and the US saying “that’s not our choice”. What is the US going to do if Ukraine decides to stop fighting? Stop supplying arms that the Ukrainians don’t need anyway if they’re at peace? The thing that I assume you want the US to do anyway, given the comment you’re responding to?

I don’t want to make Ukrainians do anything. If they choose to keep fighting, they should be enabled to do so. If they choose to make peace, great, but they should be armed sufficiently that they can actually negotiate instead of just capitulate. Either way they need to be armed, because if they don’t have the capacity to make the status quo costly then they have no leverage. There is no negotiation if we neuter Ukraine beforehand, there are only Russian demands.

Also, most of the aid is not weapons. A lot of it is, but more of it is housing Ukrainian refugees and funding the Ukrainian govenment to keep the basics of civil services going.

What?

Nobody expects that they actually will do so willingly. Just that Russia should because, y’know, starting wars to annex territory is not something most people like. That’s why Ukraine should be armed until it can make Russia leave.

That said, Russia would absolutely benefit from a negotiated settlement right now. This war is taking a lot of Russian lives and resources, so if it can persuade either Ukraine to agree to enough concessions or Ukraine’s backers to stop backing it, Russia could benefit enormously. Even if Russia actually manages to completely overrun Ukraine in the future, actually having to fight to the end will be an extremely costly ordeal.

The article you posted: “The Americans refuse to talk unless the Ukrainians are also invited”

You, for some reason: “Why is America deciding for Ukraine?”

I’m an outsider looking in who’s not particularly familiar with the structure of Taiwan’s government, but apparently a coalition is possible but not required. The executive is appointed by the president, which is elected separately and still held by the DPP. The Kuomintang seemingly failed to negotiate a coalition with the third largest party, so now nobody has a majority in the legislature. Presumably anyone that proposes legislation will just need to get the agreement of one of the other parties to get anything done.

We’re gonna need some evidence that the first one was a NATO coup for that to be persuasive. Because frankly it is not that weird at all to me that a president suddenly and unilaterally making an enormous and unpopular shift in policy sparked large protests and opposition. Never mind that Ukrainians completely destroyed Yanukovych’s party at the election only months afterwards. Never mind that Yanukovych fucking fled the country. Was Ukraine meant to just patiently wait for him to come back after he abandoned his post?

And yes, I have read the transcript of the Nuland-Pyatt call. It is not persuasive towards your claim of a NATO-backed coup. It shows that America wanted to influence who came to power afterwards, but it’s very clearly reactive and not proactive. And I’m sorry, but negotiating with leaders of a movement to try to persuade them who they should work with is just not a coup.

The objective is only “fuck Russia” if by “fuck Russia” you mean “prevent Russia from violently stealing a bunch of stuff from another country”. If that’s what you mean, then yes, the objective is fuck Russia. If that’s what “fuck Russia” means, Russia deserves to be fucked and brought it upon itself.

It costs the lives of many Ukrainian and Russian people

NATO has no leverage to make Ukraine keep fighting. If Ukraine decides it would rather capitulate, what is NATO going to do about it? The thing that is costing Ukrainian and Russian lives is Russia’s attempted land grab. The deaths stop immediately if Russia just goes home.

I prefer at least some balance of power

We already have China. Russia can’t play in the same league as America, it’s not even close. The EU and China are pretty much the only entities that currently can. I could see India getting there reasonably soon.

Honestly I would expect that Germany’s history is a reason that current German leadership would be inclined to back Israel even when it isn’t a good move. The Jews weren’t the only victims of the Holocaust, but they were the best known, and Germany wants to be seen supporting Jewish people today because it does not want to be the Germany of old. That doesn’t make it right to back Israel’s actions in Gaza, but it has reasoning to it

I’m suggesting that NATO should arm Ukraine to defend itself for so long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting.

But you clearly said that this was not about NATO. Which means there are no clear reasons since the stated reasons by Russia are a lie

No, it does not mean that. If Russia achieves its goals then it acquires millions of new citizens, a lot of the world’s most fertile land, a very strategically valuable port (that it was leasing until recently), and the water supply for that port. These would all make Russia significantly more powerful.

Of course, I don’t think that Russia deserves a goddamn thing out of any negotiations. Ideally the only negotiations will be how Russia will pay reparations to Ukraine. But again, it’s not my place to tell Ukraine what to do. I just think that we should put Ukraine in a position to be able to decide for itself. If Ukraine decides to negotiate and accept some losses in order to end the war, that’s Ukraine’s call; the point is it has to be strong enough to be able to make the decision, not have it made for it by Russia.

I’ve seen this Boris Johnson argument several times on here and never once seen anything even remotely approaching a convincing explanation of what leverage Boris ever had to do this. Like a deal for a white peace with Russia was on the table and Boris somehow twisted Zelenskyy’s arm into fighting by threatening to not send weapons that wouldn’t be necessary if there was peace anyway?

If buying stuff from the other side is your yardstick, NATO clearly wasn’t a threat to Russia. Germany, Italy, France, and America were all some of Russia’s largest import sources in 2021.

I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that Russia is acting randomly. I agree completely that Russia is acting in Russia’s interests. I just don’t think it follows from that that everyone else should just lie down and and let Russia do whatever it wants, so if countries that have the power and will to oppose Russia’s morally objectionable actions wish to do so then good on them in my book.

All of the countries near Russia that joined NATO did so because they already have their biggest aggressor on their doorsteps.

By “the Guardian” here what you mean is “an opinion piece from the fucking Cato Institute”

It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.

The answers are South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria