Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Ken]

Putin's stated terms are the complete and total genocide of Ukraine and absorption of the entire country of Ukraine as a new Russian-speaking part of the Russian Federation. He has said this.

At one point he had said the war was over Nazi and protecting the Russian citizens there. His goals change of course depending on political expediency.
I don't see how you are disagreeing with me as I stated his intentions are basically that, he just hasn't said that and you know he hasn't actually said that.

Yes he and his supporters have, in fact, said that very thing. Repeatedly. Here is just one compilation: https://www.justsecurity.org/81789/russ ... ollection/

Did you even read what I said?

Yes, you posited the completely unrealistic notion that if BOTH the US and EU abandoned Ukraine then Ukraine would be forced to settle. Whether or not that is true is beside the point. Because the EU and especially the countries of Central Europe (minus Hungary) are not going to abandon Ukraine. They would be utterly insane to do so since that simply moves the border with Russia 500 miles further west onto their very doorstep. They will happily fight to the last Ukrainian rather than see that happen.

Sanctions have a way of quietly going away and it doesn't need the full cooperation of an independent Ukraine. Surely you know how these things end up working when government changes happen. I'm not endorsing any of this.

It is actually the opposite. They tend to stick around and are often exceedingly difficult to unwind. For example, look at Trump's tariffs on China. They were opposed by Biden and the Democrats when Trump put them into place. But not one of them has been unwound since they took power. There are still sanctions on Russia since the war in Georgia that has been over for more than a decade. Doing nothing is always the easiest policy option, especially when the opposite side is as unsavory as Russia. And doing nothing on sanctions in the face of a Russian victory will be the easiest policy. Future politicians will always have reasons to look tough against Russia and to not reward their bad behavior. And a triumphant Russia will always give them plenty of reason to do so.

[Soloist]

Putin's stated terms are the complete and total genocide of Ukraine and absorption of the entire country of Ukraine as a new Russian-speaking part of the Russian Federation. He has said this.

Yes he and his supporters have, in fact, said that very thing. Repeatedly. Here is just one compilation: https://www.justsecurity.org/81789/russ ... ollection/

I think that you are misunderstanding what I’m writing. Putin has not publicly stated his goal is genocide, you know that. Incorporation into Russia perhaps.
Reading a few, I see no proof of your claim. Either way, this changed nothing. His “unspoken” or spoken goal (I really don’t care) is conquest either through Military or politics

Yes, you posited the completely unrealistic notion that if BOTH the US and EU abandoned Ukraine then Ukraine would be forced to settle. Whether or not that is true is beside the point. Because the EU and especially the countries of Central Europe (minus Hungary) are not going to abandon Ukraine. They would be utterly insane to do so since that simply moves the border with Russia 500 miles further west onto their very doorstep. They will happily fight to the last Ukrainian rather than see that happen.

Actually, that is the point. I never said they would, I said unless they stepped up and filled the gap if the us left, Ukraine would fall. It might fall anyway and to say otherwise is being hopelessly optimistic. They certainly have a chance but it’s not a sure thing even with the “small” EU/US support they are getting.

As you also said… fight to the last Ukrainian…

It is actually the opposite. They tend to stick around and are often exceedingly difficult to unwind. For example, look at Trump's tariffs on China. They were opposed by Biden and the Democrats when Trump put them into place. But not one of them has been unwound since they took power. There are still sanctions on Russia since the war in Georgia that has been over for more than a decade. Doing nothing is always the easiest policy option, especially when the opposite side is as unsavory as Russia. And doing nothing on sanctions in the face of a Russian victory will be the easiest policy. Future politicians will always have reasons to look tough against Russia and to not reward their bad behavior. And a triumphant Russia will always give them plenty of reason to do so.

I don’t care. We can go around in circles but the public policy is different then the quiet policy. I’m not going to continue to debate about things you don’t know and I don’t know.

[RZehr]

History is also against Russia. Can you point to a single instance in the past 100 years where a former colonial power managed to seize and hold on to any former colonial possession that had subsequently gained independence? A single example of this happening anywhere in the world?

Finland was forced to sign the Treaty of Moscow on 12 March 1940, which ceded 11 per cent of its territory to the Soviet Union.

Tibet.

Northern Ireland.

[Ken]

History is also against Russia. Can you point to a single instance in the past 100 years where a former colonial power managed to seize and hold on to any former colonial possession that had subsequently gained independence? A single example of this happening anywhere in the world?

Finland was forced to sign the Treaty of Moscow on 12 March 1940, which ceded 11 per cent of its territory to the Soviet Union.

Tibet.

Northern Ireland.

All kinds of international borders moved in the wake of WW1 and WW2 but none of those are really examples of what I'm talking about.

Finland was never a colony of Russia that gained independence and then was recaptured and reabsorbed into Russia. Stalin had aims to annex all of Finland but was unable to do so. During the Winter War they managed to seize about 11% of Finland but that was as far as they got. Sort of like where Russia is now. But Russia's stated aim is the elimination of Ukraine, not simply the annexation of the Donbass and Crimea.

Tibet is more ambiguous. It's the closest but doesn't really fit either. Tibet was part of China from the 1720s onward and during the 1920s through 1940s when China was in chaos, Tibet asserted and gained some quasi-independence that wasn't recognized by most countries most certainly not China.

Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. In fact the actual full name of the UK is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". At no point has the UK ever granted Northern Ireland its independence then retook it.

Ukraine is really more like Algeria, Vietnam, India, or Canada in that it was a former colony that was granted independence and existed as a fully independent state and then was attempted to be recolonized by its former colonial master.

It would be like the French trying to retake and annex Algeria or Vietnam. Or the British trying to retake and absorb Canada or India. Or the US trying t recapture and annex the Philippines. Or Germany trying to annex and retake Poland by force.

[temporal1]

Aug 1 2023 / The Crimean Peninsula is both a playground and a battleground, coveted by Ukraine and Russia
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 3ecf19f71b


March 1 2024 / Russia Claims German Generals Discussed Blowing Up Crimean Bridge
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-claims- ... ge-1875261

[Josh]

Victoria Nuland in a surprise resigned. Replacement for undersecretary of political affairs is a career state department guy.

[Ken]

Aug 1 2023 / The Crimean Peninsula is both a playground and a battleground, coveted by Ukraine and Russia
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 3ecf19f71b


March 1 2024 / Russia Claims German Generals Discussed Blowing Up Crimean Bridge
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-claims- ... ge-1875261

Crimea is not a playground. It is the internationally recognized sovereign territory of Ukraine. Which Russia had promised to respect and has since reneged. The actual narrative is the following:

1. Upon the breakup of the USSR in 1991 the independent states of Russia and Ukraine were formed along the lines of their historic boundaries within the USSR. Both nations were equal partners in the previous USSR. The newly independent Ukraine was left with over 1700 nuclear weapons in its possession and on its soil.

2. After several years of negotiations culminating in the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from both NATO and Russia that its territorial and political integrity would be guaranteed. Russia agreed to this and the US and NATO agreed to uphold the agreement as well.

3. 20 years later in 2014, Russia decides to violate this previous agreement and invade both the Donbass and Crimea and attempt to annex both regions. Annexations that neither the UN nor any other nation not under the thumb of Russia has recognized. But no other nation really made any effort to stop.

4. 8 years later, Russia decides to try its luck again and invade/annex the remaining parts of Ukraine. And here we are today.

[Soloist]

What does Russia say happened?

[Ken]

What does Russia say happened?

Mostly lies

[Soloist]

What does Russia say happened?

Mostly lies

Spoken like a true patriot. Do you actually know what they said were lies though? Or both sides thought the agreement meant something else?