Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[barnhart]

I don't care for NATO either. You know...entangling alliances and all that stuff. There is no reason the USA needs to provide the national security for European polities, in my view.

And as was mentioned, the Polish Guarantee provides a compelling example of the dangers. Not to mention the way alliances literally facilitated in the Great War.

I don't really have a strong opinion on NATO because it is not my kingdom. But, what is the difference between the entangling alliances of two nations, or of two states within a nation? Why does one entity of any sort 'need' to provide security for another? Usually it is a perceived need because of the desire for mutual support. These alliances are entangling, but you could make the argument that they are often empowering as well, functioning as a deterrent for conflict. Why did the Cold War never go hot? Maybe NATO was a factor.

Those alliances that burst out in the great war were the result of several hundred years of wars of European nationalism. They formed out of an attempt to stop nationalist expansionism. I wouldn't guarantee there is a path one way or another with a guarantee to avoid war. NATO has done well for quite a while, I wouldn't be quick to think of it as a failure or outdated.

[temporal1]

I do not see why America needs to supply security guarantees to Ukraine particularly when we get nothing in return.

Sorry to repeat, esp about a situation that appears will not be, but ..
i wish the February minerals agreement had gone through. From the little i read, it was structured to be win-win-win, with tangible benefits to all, and built-in preventions+incentives against violence/war to all.

i prefer to create a situation where enemies are disarmed by gainful, positive alternatives, rather than endless attempts at force.
no one has to like each other to work together. it happens all the time, in small ways and large.

trust and respect are built over time.
i’ve seen it happen many times IRL, and i’ve read about it, throughout history.

the point is to create a starting point. “the longest journey begins with the first step.”
even with nations.

[Ken]

If Putin simply wants the war to continue, he wouldn't have to be doing any of these meetings. And if it becomes clear that this is what he wants, Trump, the Europeans, and Zelenskyy will quickly tire of what they are investing in the peace talks, and then we're back to where we were. I predict that if this is the case, the West will ratchet up their military support for Ukraine with Trump's full support. I think Trump has shown signs of getting tired of Putin's games (not sure why he didn't get to that point quicker), and that this might be why Putin has been more willing to discuss peace than he was, say, a year ago. I actually think Putin might be a little afraid of what Trump might do when he gets his dander up.

That isn't necessarily true.

The opposite argument is that Putin is dangling meetings and possible cease fires, etc. to forestall additional sanctions and aid to Ukraine. By dangling the possibility of peace he is attempting to freeze western support for Ukraine.

Is it working? Possibly.

[temporal1]

Putin and Z have proven unreliable wrt their words, so, there is that.

i appreciate the way President Stubb handled Andrea Mithchell: video is -3min

NBC / “An unexpectedly pivotal figure in Ukraine negotiations speaks out”
Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has bonded with President Donald Trump over golf, gave NBC News an inside look at the White House meeting on Ukraine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/u ... rcna225840

[JohnH]

I don't care for NATO either. You know...entangling alliances and all that stuff. There is no reason the USA needs to provide the national security for European polities, in my view.

And as was mentioned, the Polish Guarantee provides a compelling example of the dangers. Not to mention the way alliances literally facilitated in the Great War.

I don't really have a strong opinion on NATO because it is not my kingdom. But, what is the difference between the entangling alliances of two nations, or of two states within a nation? Why does one entity of any sort 'need' to provide security for another? Usually it is a perceived need because of the desire for mutual support. These alliances are entangling, but you could make the argument that they are often empowering as well, functioning as a deterrent for conflict. Why did the Cold War never go hot? Maybe NATO was a factor.

Those alliances that burst out in the great war were the result of several hundred years of wars of European nationalism. They formed out of an attempt to stop nationalist expansionism. I wouldn't guarantee there is a path one way or another with a guarantee to avoid war. NATO has done well for quite a while, I wouldn't be quick to think of it as a failure or outdated.

NATO worked because it was an alliance of Western European nations. It wasn’t an alliance of one side of Eastern European squabbles vs the other side.

[temporal1]

Putin and Z have proven unreliable wrt their words, so, there is that.

i appreciate the way President Stubb handled Andrea Mithchell: video is -3min

NBC / “An unexpectedly pivotal figure in Ukraine negotiations speaks out”
Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has bonded with President Donald Trump over golf, gave NBC News an inside look at the White House meeting on Ukraine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/u ... rcna225840

Speaking of squabbles, after listening several times, i sense President Stubb was giving Ms Mitchell a stern message he’s not interested in the TDS agenda at this time. Probably esp following 4 years of the trainwreck foisted upon the world, forcing world leaders to pretend all was hunky-dory.

Hopefully, never again for that kind of thing.

[R7ehr]

Putin and Z have proven unreliable wrt their words, so, there is that.

i appreciate the way President Stubb handled Andrea Mithchell: video is -3min

NBC / “An unexpectedly pivotal figure in Ukraine negotiations speaks out”
Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has bonded with President Donald Trump over golf, gave NBC News an inside look at the White House meeting on Ukraine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/u ... rcna225840

Speaking of squabbles, after listening several times, i sense President Stubb was giving Ms Mitchell a stern message he’s not interested in the TDS agenda at this time. Probably esp following 4 years of the trainwreck foisted upon the world, forcing world leaders to pretend all was hunky-dory.

Hopefully, never again for that kind of thing.

More from that article:

“What we have agreed on is to work on European and American security guarantees, essentially, which will be secure from the European perspective, coordinated with the Americans,” Stubb said. “It’s us who decide what kind of security guarantees we put up for Ukraine, not the Russians.”

He responded sharply to Russia’s immediate rejection of the idea that those security guarantees would potentially include a NATO presence.

“Russia doesn’t decide on that,” Stubb said. “It’s as simple as that.”

Stubb, whose country joined NATO in 2023 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine the year before, said the leaders agreed Monday that security guarantees for Ukraine were among their top priorities, along with a bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin, followed by a trilateral meeting including Zelenskyy, Putin and Trump.

For Stubb, Russia’s war in Ukraine is personal. Both his father and grandfather were born in cities that were ceded to Russia following Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s 1939 invasion of Finland and that remain part of Russia today. That history informs his commitment to Ukraine. Until Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Finland, which shares more than 800 miles of border with Russia, had remained steadfastly neutral for decades, including during the Cold War.

…

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump asked Stubb over lunch if he could trust Putin, and Stubb told him “you cannot.” Hours later, the Journal noted, Trump publicly criticized Putin for the first time over his refusal to agree to a cease-fire with Ukraine.

The Journal also reported on informal calls and texts between the two leaders since then, including Trump sometimes consulting Stubb before speaking with Putin. Zelenskyy has also publicly thanked Stubb for helping him build a connection with Trump in the aftermath of Trump and Zelenskyy’s infamously heated Oval Office meeting in February.

[temporal1]

.. According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump asked Stubb over lunch if he could trust Putin, and Stubb told him “you cannot.”
Hours later, the Journal noted, Trump publicly criticized Putin for the first time over his refusal to agree to a cease-fire with Ukraine.

The Journal also reported on informal calls and texts between the two leaders since then, including Trump sometimes consulting Stubb before speaking with Putin. Zelenskyy has also publicly thanked Stubb for helping him build a connection with Trump in the aftermath of Trump and Zelenskyy’s infamously heated Oval Office meeting in February.

i don’t believe this was the first time Trump criticized Putin. (i’m not going to look it up.) Trump has been seriously unhappy with both Putin and Z in recent weeks/months, as both have escalated attacks on each other. They provoke each other.

i appreciate Trump is willing to offer continued help with negotiations, even after serious disappointments.
His reasoning, “to stop the killing.” (He said in Monday’s meeting, not in the NBC report.)

i appreciated President Stubb’s no-nonsense interaction with Ms Mitchell. Not taking her divisive bait.

i agree with President Stubb, nothing is known now. He hopes for a meeting in Geneva, even that’s unknown.

[joshuabgood]

I don't care for NATO either. You know...entangling alliances and all that stuff. There is no reason the USA needs to provide the national security for European polities, in my view.

And as was mentioned, the Polish Guarantee provides a compelling example of the dangers. Not to mention the way alliances literally facilitated in the Great War.

I don't really have a strong opinion on NATO because it is not my kingdom. But, what is the difference between the entangling alliances of two nations, or of two states within a nation? Why does one entity of any sort 'need' to provide security for another? Usually it is a perceived need because of the desire for mutual support. These alliances are entangling, but you could make the argument that they are often empowering as well, functioning as a deterrent for conflict. Why did the Cold War never go hot? Maybe NATO was a factor.

This is a fair point...regarding comparing nations w/ states etc. I can't really argue with that.

I am not convinced that NATO is a peacekeeping organization on the whole. And I think a decent interpretation is that NATO escalated the post WWII tension.

[mike]

I don't care for NATO either. You know...entangling alliances and all that stuff. There is no reason the USA needs to provide the national security for European polities, in my view.

And as was mentioned, the Polish Guarantee provides a compelling example of the dangers. Not to mention the way alliances literally facilitated in the Great War.

I don't really have a strong opinion on NATO because it is not my kingdom. But, what is the difference between the entangling alliances of two nations, or of two states within a nation? Why does one entity of any sort 'need' to provide security for another? Usually it is a perceived need because of the desire for mutual support. These alliances are entangling, but you could make the argument that they are often empowering as well, functioning as a deterrent for conflict. Why did the Cold War never go hot? Maybe NATO was a factor.

This is a fair point...regarding comparing nations w/ states etc. I can't really argue with that.

I am not convinced that NATO is a peacekeeping organization on the whole. And I think a decent interpretation is that NATO escalated the post WWII tension.

We don't know the alternative history naturally, but of course letting an aggressor have his way deescalates tension; the question is whether that is the best course of action for those who stand to suffer from said aggression. It's easy to say that western Europe and America actually had nothing to fear from post WW2 Russia, which was armed to the teeth, angered from its suffering at the hands of the Nazis, and eager to build its own land empire and global superpower status. As bad as the two world wars were, I think that a third one would have potentially been much worse considering nuclear weapons. One could argue that NATO was a factor in preventing this.