Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Bootstrap]

My sense was that the word “proxy” meant that the war was really between the US and Russia. Ukraine is just doing the US’s bidding. I never bought that.

It seemed to me that the U.S. was caught off guard by the invasion—expecting Ukraine to collapse within days or weeks—and had no real plan to intervene. Only after Ukraine’s unexpected resilience did Washington commit to substantial support.

Back in the early 1990s, after the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. helped broker an agreement in which Ukraine gave up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal—warheads it had inherited from the USSR—to Russia for dismantling. The deal, formalized in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, offered Ukraine vague “security assurances” from the U.S., U.K., and Russia, but not binding guarantees of defense.

Years later, Putin claimed Ukraine was nothing more than a U.S. proxy and used that narrative as one of his justifications for invasion.

So if people call Ukraine a proxy, I would like to know precisely what they mean by that.

[Szdfan]

My sense was that the word “proxy” meant that the war was really between the US and Russia. Ukraine is just doing the US’s bidding. I never bought that.

It seemed to me that the U.S. was caught off guard by the invasion—expecting Ukraine to collapse within days or weeks—and had no real plan to intervene. Only after Ukraine’s unexpected resilience did Washington commit to substantial support.

Decades earlier, the U.S. played a key role in persuading Ukraine to transfer its inherited nuclear weapons to Russia, removing any potential threat to American interests. In exchange, Ukraine received only vague security assurances, not binding guarantees.

Which is why Ukraine is looking for security guarantees beyond vague assurances. They expect to get invaded again. That’s not an unreasonable position.

[Neto]

....
For Ukraine, there are examples of acting independently in ways the U.S. has not necessarily wanted:

• Ukrainian military operations that Washington reportedly advised against (e.g., certain deep strikes inside Russian territory).
  ....

....

That could be like when someone says something like "Don't you dare do so-and-so." - and then they wink.

[temporal1]

Besides both sides, just believe the other would rearm for future aggression.

Unfortunately, the history of the ongoing conflict in the region does not provide much hope for cessation of hostilities.

Between 2014 and 2022 there were 29 ceasefires, each agreed to remain in force indefinitely. However, none of them lasted more than two weeks.

With that many ceasefires, it should be one of the most peaceful places in the world.

^^1 coin, 2 sides.

.. but nobody else has been able to. ..
https://

^^No one else has tried.
Trump is willing to try, and try again. He tried BEFORE Russia crossed the line. i super-appreciate that: PREVENTION.

To suggest Russia’s move was unforeseen and unprepared for, leaves me in disbelief.
Not foreseen by the overall public, probably - but, left-west uniparty politicians+military were counting on it, if not baiting it.

[Ernie]

But somebody has to make the Ukrainians understand that they can't get what they want here. Because Europe and the US have refused to actually enter into a hot war against Russian in support of Ukraine. So we are in the same stalemate that we have always been, and the best that Ukraine can probably hope for is for the war to stop with Russia keeping all of its gains.

NATO can provide enough air defenses to protect Ukraine from aerial assaults if they wanted to, without being involved in any killing. NATO could also keep Russia from gaining additional ground in Ukraine by establishing a no-fly no war zone on the 4/5ths of Ukraine that Russia does not yet control without entering active war with Russia. And the UN can continue to recognize Ukraine's full territory, even if it is currently occupied by Russia. And NATO can put full sanctions on Russia and its allies. All this could be done and the killing would basically cease. But Trump doesn't want to do this for whatever reasons.

Yes, Russia might occupy Ukraine for a long while under this arrangement, but it is a known fact that Russian leaders reverse the decisions of former leaders, years down the road.

[ken_sylvania]

But somebody has to make the Ukrainians understand that they can't get what they want here. Because Europe and the US have refused to actually enter into a hot war against Russian in support of Ukraine. So we are in the same stalemate that we have always been, and the best that Ukraine can probably hope for is for the war to stop with Russia keeping all of its gains.

NATO can provide enough air defenses to protect Ukraine from aerial assaults if they wanted to, without being involved in any killing. NATO could also keep Russia from gaining additional ground in Ukraine by establishing a no-fly no war zone on the 4/5ths of Ukraine that Russia does not yet control without entering active war with Russia. And the UN can continue to recognize Ukraine's full territory, even if it is currently occupied by Russia. And NATO can put full sanctions on Russia and its allies. All this could be done and the killing would basically cease. But Trump doesn't want to do this for whatever reasons.

Yes, Russia might occupy Ukraine for a long while under this arrangement, but it is a known fact that Russian leaders reverse the decisions of former leaders, years down the road.

Too bad they don't have you for a military advisor. You seem amazingly confident about your understanding of what can be done militarily and how Russia would respond.

[JohnH]

But somebody has to make the Ukrainians understand that they can't get what they want here. Because Europe and the US have refused to actually enter into a hot war against Russian in support of Ukraine. So we are in the same stalemate that we have always been, and the best that Ukraine can probably hope for is for the war to stop with Russia keeping all of its gains.

NATO can provide enough air defenses to protect Ukraine from aerial assaults if they wanted to, without being involved in any killing. NATO could also keep Russia from gaining additional ground in Ukraine by establishing a no-fly no war zone on the 4/5ths of Ukraine that Russia does not yet control without entering active war with Russia.

Enforcing a no fly zone means being willing to shoot down the enemy, which so far nobody in NATO is willing to do.

Russia has made very little use of its Air Force in this war, either.

And the UN can continue to recognize Ukraine's full territory, even if it is currently occupied by Russia.

Which countries sit on the UN Security Council?

And NATO can put full sanctions on Russia and its allies. All this could be done and the killing would basically cease. But Trump doesn't want to do this for whatever reasons.

The U.S. already put severe sanctions on Russia.

[sojourner]

But somebody has to make the Ukrainians understand that they can't get what they want here. Because Europe and the US have refused to actually enter into a hot war against Russian in support of Ukraine. So we are in the same stalemate that we have always been, and the best that Ukraine can probably hope for is for the war to stop with Russia keeping all of its gains.

NATO can provide enough air defenses to protect Ukraine from aerial assaults if they wanted to, without being involved in any killing. NATO could also keep Russia from gaining additional ground in Ukraine by establishing a no-fly no war zone on the 4/5ths of Ukraine that Russia does not yet control without entering active war with Russia. And the UN can continue to recognize Ukraine's full territory, even if it is currently occupied by Russia. And NATO can put full sanctions on Russia and its allies. All this could be done and the killing would basically cease. But Trump doesn't want to do this for whatever reasons.

Yes, Russia might occupy Ukraine for a long while under this arrangement, but it is a known fact that Russian leaders reverse the decisions of former leaders, years down the road.

Too bad they don't have you for a military advisor. You seem amazingly confident about your understanding of what can be done militarily and how Russia would respond.

Some people really don’t have a clue do they? If it were that easy it would have been done a long time ago.
I also didn’t realize that NATO is controlled by Trump. But sure, let’s blame the one guy that has tried harder than anyone else to end the war.
I also tend to think that few people understand what it would mean to try and establish a no fly zone.
The ball is and has always been in Russia’s court. The war will stop when Putin decides he wants it to. I don’t think he’ll let anyone else dictate it. Even as his country suffers he’s sitting on billions in personal wealth. As we’ve witnessed in Cuba, NK, and many other places, dictators do not care one bit the cost of defying the U.S.

[Szdfan]

....
For Ukraine, there are examples of acting independently in ways the U.S. has not necessarily wanted:

• Ukrainian military operations that Washington reportedly advised against (e.g., certain deep strikes inside Russian territory).
  ....

....

That could be like when someone says something like "Don't you dare do so-and-so." - and then they wink.

I don’t think that was the case. One of the reasons why the Biden Administration limited the amount of support they gave Ukraine was that they were worried about the war escalating from a regional conflict to something a lot bigger. From what I’ve read, there wasn’t any winking going on.

While the US did eventually give Ukraine some of the equipment they wanted and eventually did allow them to attack Russia itself, the Biden Administration did hobble Ukraine’s ability to be more successful earlier on.

[temporal1]

sojourner:
.. Even as his country suffers he’s sitting on billions in personal wealth. As we’ve witnessed in Cuba, NK, and many other places, dictators do not care one bit the cost of defying the U.S.

Similar with terrorists, and, frankly, TDS.
It’s anathema to conventional thinking in the west, and certainly to Christianity. “The end justifies the means.”