That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? — schopenhauer1

The first thing that needs happen is for Israel to stop its belligerent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Until that happens, Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel.

Armed resistance isn't even forbidden under such conditions according to international law, and Israel, being the occupier, cannot legally claim self-defense.

More than your personal doubt, please give some reason why wouldn't this be the case? — ssu

Because the Russians had been drawing a red line since at least 2008, so supporting a coup was essentially calling Russia's bluff. That the US was unaware of this is simply unthinkable.

Also, I don't believe a single word that comes from US about its intelligence agencies.

Sorry, but the West was totally surprised with it's pants down when Russia annexed Crimea. — ssu

I doubt the US was completely surprised by it, since they had just supported a coup in Ukraine. Perhaps they hadn't anticipated that the Russians would dare invade Crimea with such a small force.

I'm sure the decision not to put boots on the ground was made somewhere between 2014-2021.

Luckily we are in NATO, poor of Sweden... — ssu

Personally, I really dislike my country throwing their lot in with countries like the US and Britain, which are essentially island nations that don't share any of the security concerns of the mainland European nations. It actually makes sense for them to play political games to keep the Eurasian continent divided, as per Mackinder's Heartland theory.

A European security structure would make more sense, though not via the EU.

What the fuck. This is ridiculous.

I even felt bad for Blinken on this one.

Someone stop this man. :lol:

However, a bigger factor I think is that the war festers during the Trump presidency and Russia gate was an overriding US political game that prevented the Trump administration from doing what RAND suggests for domestic political reasons. — boethius

Personally I think this war was going to happen no matter what. Many presidents, including Trump and Obama, tried to change the course of US foreign policy, but were unable to fight 'the Blob'.

The people who are in charge now aren't just favorable to the Blob, they ARE the Blob. Neocon hawks who have all been involved in project Ukraine. If you check their political track record, you'll find they're all elbow deep in Ukraine literally for decades.


Perhaps a more interesting question would be what the goal is of project Ukraine.

In my view, it is thinkable that they knew the Russians were going to invade, and also knew the Russians would eventually prevail, since the decision not to put NATO boots on the ground was obviously made in advance of the conflict.

Maybe the goal of project Ukraine really was to incorporate Ukraine into NATO/EU, but perhaps this was just the red herring to provoke Russia, and the actual goal of project Ukraine lies elsewhere - perhaps the goal was a forever war between Russia and Europe.

For example, European energy dependency has been a thorn in the United States' side for at least a decade, and it ties in nicely with the US blowing up Nord Stream.

Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US. — ssu

There is some role for regional players, but their influence compared to that of the great powers or their intelligence agencies is negligible.

I think people underestimate just how powerful the US and the CIA are/were. And this trend in large part countinues to this day. Just look at the gigantic propaganda campaigns surrounding Ukraine and Gaza.

Again, Iraq fell to Baathists. — schopenhauer1

Which the US supported.

The coup against Mossadegh was concocted by the British under Churchill because they were nationalizing the longstanding British oil companies there. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. Countries becoming modern, rejecting colonialism, etc.

Churchill was no less a scumbag. Perhaps even the worst of them all.

It's hard to say the US was the "bad guy" there. — schopenhauer1

I'd say that goes without saying. They armed the Taliban and subsequently put them in charge. I don't think I need to remind you who the Taliban were. It's one of many extremist groups that rose to power as a direct result of US interference.

That isn't to say the US was the only bad guy in Afghanistan.

However, out of all of those, it was Iran that actually was the worst of them because that could have been a democracy, even if not quite aligned with interests. — schopenhauer1

A lot of countries in the Middle-East had undemocratic forms of government, but for a lot of those countries that's what worked. It kept those countries stable and gave them prosperity. Countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, even Somalia, used to be genuinely modern (or well on their way towards modernity).

Prosperity is ultimately what brought Europe and the United States out of despotism, so in my mind there's no reason to assume the same wouldn't have happened in the Middle-East were it not for constant US meddling.

Sadly, wealthy countries are also powerful, and that's the one thing the United States and Israel could not tolerate in the region. Wealthy communist countries? Even worse!

Certainly America (and Britain and others) favored various policies before and during the Cold War, but I don't think the US would ever want Nasser or the Baath ideology to take charge. — schopenhauer1

It might not have been what they wanted, but that's what they got.

They were like children playing with fire, but it was someone else's house that burned down.

But for what it's worth, the US put these people in charge because they thought it would keep the communists/socialists out, often to no avail.

It's a known trope that many of the people the US put in power through regime change turned towards communism on their own initiative.

This of course convinced the US that the Soviets were everywhere and that they needed more regime change.

It's an incredibly cynical game the US played. The abuse of power and the toying with the fates of nations on a global scale. I don't think it has any precedent in history.

Excuse me, who put Nasser in charge in Egypt? Who started the string of coups in Syria? Uncle Sam's greasy fingerprints are all over the Middle-East, and wherever it got involved things got worse. Much worse. They're closing in on a century of sowing chaos in the Middle-East, much of it directly tied to protecting Israel's position in the region.

Oh, and if you do a bit of digging around the Ba'ath party coming to power in Iraq, guess what you find?

The whole thing is so ironic it would be a nice joke were it not for the fact that the United States has the blood of millions on its hands in the Middle-East alone.

The most important reason Israel is "singled out" is because it enjoys widespread western backing, and its special relationship with the United States ensures it is never held accountable. Western-sponsored crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, the United States and Israel are responsible for many of the dumpster fires that litter the Middle-East. The dictators, they themselves have put in power. The extremist groups, they themselves have created and supported. The moderates, they themselves have deposed or assassinated.

So yea, I'm not buying these crocodile tears.

Recently brought to my attention was a report written by former UN Assistant Secretary-General Michael von der Schulenberg, German professor Hajo Funke and retired formerly highest-ranking German general Harald Kujat.

The report features a detailed reconstruction of the peace negotiations that took place in March/April of 2022.

This is merely confirming what many of us already strongly suspected, but

Here are the seven points which comprise most of Schulenberg's contribution to the report:

1) Just one month after the start of the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had come very close to an agreement for a ceasefire and to an outline for a comprehensive peace solution to the conflict.

2) In contrast to today, President Zelensky and his government had made great efforts to negotiate peace with Russia and bring the war to a quick end.

3) Contrary to Western interpretations, Ukraine and Russia agreed at the time that the planned NATO expansion was the reason for the war. They therefore focused their peace negotiations on Ukraine’s neutrality and its renunciation of NATO membership. In return, Ukraine would have retained its territorial integrity except for Crimea.

4) There is little doubt that these peace negotiations failed due to resistance from NATO and in particular from the USA and the UK. The reasons is that such a peace agreement would have been tantamount to a defeat for NATO, an end to NATO’s eastward expansion and thus an end to the dream of a unipolar world dominated by the USA.

5) The failure of the peace negotiations in March 2022 led to dangerous intensification of the war that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, especially young people, deeply traumatized a young generation and inflicted the most severe mental and physical wounds on them. Ukraine has been exposed to enormous destruction, internal displacements, and mass impoverishment. This is accompanied by a large-scale depopulation of the country. Not only Russia, but also NATO and the West bear a heavy share of the blame for this disaster.

6) Ukraine’s negotiating position today is far worse than it was in March 2022. Ukraine will now lose large parts of its territory.

7) The blocking of the peace negotiations at that time has harmed everyone: Russia and Europe – but above all the people of Ukraine, who are paying with their blood the price for the ambitions of the major powers and will probably get nothing in return. — Former UN Assistant-General Michael von der Schulenberg

Kujat and Funke conclude:

Fact is that the main results of the negotiations were based on a proposal by Ukraine, and Zelenskyy courageously supported them in an interview with Russian journalists on March 27, 2022, even after NATO decided against these peace negotiations. Zelensky had already expressed similar support beforehand in a sign that proves that the intended outcome of the Istanbul negotiations certainly corresponded to Ukrainian interests.

This makes the Western intervention, which prevented an early end to the war, even more disastrous for Ukraine. Russia’s responsibility for the attack, which was contrary to international law, is not relativized by the fact that responsibility for the grave consequences that ensued must also be attributed to the states that demanded the continuation of the war. — Peace for Ukraine

It's beyond me how anyone can take this seriously. — Echarmion

That could very well be. What's your academic background?

Since there has been some debate about what Mearsheimer actually believes about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I'll share this quote from a recent lecture given on the 23rd of October, 2023:

[Putin] has not come close to trying to conquer all of Ukraine. When he invaded Ukraine in 2022, they sent 190,000 troops in at the most. There is absolutely no way that a 190,000 troops could conquer Ukraine.

[...]

And if Putin were interested in all conquering of Ukraine, he would need at least 2,000,000, I would argue he would need at least 3,000,000 troops.* He did not have those kind of force levels. He did not try to conquer Kiev. The reason he invaded Ukraine is he wanted to force Zelensky to the bargaining table, so they could get some sort of agreement on Ukrainian neutrality, Ukraine not being in NATO. — John J. Mearsheimer

*Mearsheimer bases this on the German invasion of western Poland, and the size of Poland in relation to Ukraine. The lecture contains more detail.


Note that this is almost exactly my argument as I have defended it here for several months.

You take anything negative about the Russian invasion with a grain of salt. — ssu

I take media propaganda with a grain of salt, and if I binged on it as much as the average TFP poster then I would be very worried about my salt intake indeed.

I'm not a military expert, but what happened looks to me to be modelled on the WW2 German invasion of France, a high speed blitz takeover of the Capital avoiding the main defensive forces — unenlightened

But this is ridiculous.

What modern army is going to model their defense on 1940's France? Have you seen a Ukrainian Maginot Line anywhere?


Holding on to Kiev was Ukraine's most obvious goal, so taking Kiev while avoiding the main defensive forces is a non-starter. If anything the main body of the Ukrainian forces was located in and around Kiev.

Taking it would have required a force several times larger than what the Russians deployed on the Kiev axis, and months of grueling urban combat. Nothing in the Russian force posture suggests they were getting ready for such an operation.


Furthermore, as I've often argued here, occupying Kiev is unlikely to have been the Russians' goal for several reasons. One reason is that due to extensive US / western support it is unlikely that it would have made a large impact on the military situation. The Ukrainian army remained operational, and leadership of the war could be conducted from elsewhere.

Anecdotally, they were running short first of fuel, then of personal equipment for troops, and then of munitions and tanks and even training facilities for the reinforcements. But perhaps that is all Western propaganda. — unenlightened

Supposedly they were also running short on artillery shells, yet scarcely a day has gone by that the entire frontline hasn't been peppered by Russian artillery, so I do tend to take such reports with a grain of salt.

But from a military perspective, the Russians probably expended a large portion of their offensive capacity on the initial invasion. After the initial invasion failed to conclude the war through a negotiated settlement, the Russians changed their force posture towards defense and they started to dig in. At that point the demand for supplies changes also.

For example, the Russians may have been running "low" on tanks and fuel, but since they probably weren't planning further large-scale offensive operations that could also be the normal picture one would expect after the initial invasion was concluded and they entered a period of recuperation.

Then why did they have those long lines of stalled transport for a week or two, and why did they run short of so many things so quickly? Can they not count? — unenlightened

The inactivity of the Russian forces in northern Ukraine during the initial stages of the war in my view reflects their purpose as I have described it. Had the purpose been to overwhelm defenders and surround and occupy Kiev, we would have seen an entirely different pattern, more like we saw during the battle for Bakhmut and Avdiivka but much larger in scale.

What are/were the Russians running short of?

I think Putin thought the same about Zelensky. A puppet he could knock over in a few days.Do you think Russia began this prepared for a long war of attrition? — unenlightened

I doubt the Russians expected a quick military victory, considering the fact that they invaded with a force that was way too small to fully defeat the Ukrainian military and occupy all of Ukraine.

The operations in the north and around Kiev were intended to pressure Ukraine into negotiations, which we know did take place in March/April of 2022 and were subsequently blocked by the United States and Britain. So at the very least the Russians believed there was a possibility of a quick negotiated settlement through a show of military force. I guess at this time the Russians still believed the European desire for peace in eastern Europe and normal economic relations with Russia would trump neocon interests in Ukraine, but they were wrong.

Since negotiations failed, the Russian plan is probably to sit on the territory they now occupy and leverage their military advantage until either a negotiated settlement is reached or the war turns into a frozen conflict.

A quick negotiated settlement was obviously the preferred outcome, but it's pretty much unthinkable that the Russians did not plan for a situation in which negotiations failed.

Lastly, "war of attrition" is not necessarily an accurate characterization of this conflict even though the term is used a lot. It is more like a prolonged stand-off with occasional, relatively small-scale offensive actions. I don't think it is nearly as taxing on the Russian system as western media likes to suggest, and that the Russians can sustain these types of operations pretty much indefinitely.

Installing a puppet regime in a country that has been militarized by the United States over the course of 10 years, with an intact and capable army that enjoys extensive support from the US and its European neighbors? That is not really a feasible proposition. I think such a puppet regime would last a few days at most.

It should also be noted that the Russian military did not make any large push towards Odessa. After they captured Cherson they made a few incursions north / northwest ward and retreated upon meeting resistance.

Consider how the Russians fought the battle of Bahkmut, or the siege of Mariupol.

Kiev and Kharkiv are several times larger, so we would expect to see comparable movements only larger in scale. Yet, nothing in the behavior of the Russian forces suggested they were preparing for a lengthy siege or months of grueling urban combat.

I know what your explanation is for that; Russian incompetence, but I think that's a weak explanation.

Yet it's obvious, starting from Clausewitz, that this was one of the most important objectives: either take or surround the capital. — ssu

If taking Kiev was the principal Russian objective, how come the fighting around Kiev resembled nothing like we saw in places where actual bitter fighting took place? And how come they only deployed 20,000 troops to participate in the battle and they never made any serious effort to surround the capital let alone capture Kiev? We would expect massed firepower.

I agree with you to the extent that there was obviously a point to the attack on Kiev, but in my opinion this was a show of force meant to facilitate negotiations, and it served a double purpose in pulling troops to the north to faciliate the advance in the south.
_

I agree with you. The West (i.e. the United States) knew exactly what it was doing by arming Ukraine, and it did so specifically to flip Ukraine, as they said they would do at the 2008 Bucharest Summit.

It requires an extraordinary amount of naivety to believe western intentions were benign, and even more in the case of the Russians who clearly voiced their security concerns over the course of more than a decade.

Why would "the West" be the one negotiating in such a scenario? — Echarmion

The Russians are responding to a western action, namely the militarization of Ukraine. They probably expected 'the West' to be more reasonable.

Instead, the United States is completely content to sacrifice Ukraine, and the EU is too dimwitted to understand what is even going on.

Which is still an unsourced claim that's only repeated by people with a known pro-Russia bias. — Echarmion

Nonsense. Jeffrey Sachs gave us clear accounts of what the people involved told him happened. Are you really going to argue he is 'pro-Russian'? The guy is as genuine as they come.

Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hersh - all pro-Russian too?

Accusing the other side of partisanship is intellectual poverty.

Also no idea where you're getting your numbers from. Per Wikipedia Ukraine had 20.000 regulars and 18.000 irregulars across the entire northern front, while Russia had some 70.000 regular troops. — Echarmion

The Ukrainian general staff reported 31 BTGs moving on Kiev. That's roughly 21,000 soldiers. This figure never changed over the course of the month-long battle.

The Wiki article actually says ~20,000 irregulars + 'an undisclosed number of regular fighters' - Yea, I wonder why it's undisclosed? Perhaps the Battle of Kiev couldn't be spun into an 'heroic Ukrainian victory' if the Ukrainians were actually outnumbering the Russians on the defense, eh?

The 60,000 figure comes from a Seymour Hersh interview in which he suggests 40,000 regular troops + 20,000 irregulars, but even if we take your figure and suppose 40,000 defenders, that still puts the Ukrainian forces at a 2:1 advantage.

For urban fighting a city like Kiev we'd expect 3:1 in favor of the Russians as the bare minimum - we'd expect as much as 10:1 in one were planning for success.

It can't be because that would disagree with your narrative. — Echarmion

More like, it's impossible to twist the numbers to fit an 'heroic Ukrainian victory' narrative even if you wanted to.

Yes, let's ignore the entire well documented battle... — Echarmion

You mean the propaganda you've been binging on over the last year?

Yea. Let's ignore that.

Casualty figures do not suggest the type of bitter fighting we have seen elsewhere in the war. If the Russians intended to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses with massed force and firepower, we would expect an entirely different picture.

Changing the goalposts. Not a surprise. — Echarmion

It was not the point under discussion. But do keep changing the subject whenever one of your so called arguments fails. — Echarmion

Blah blah.

I hear an exhausted mind. You're just having a hard time coping.

How many US soldiers died? And how many Russians? — Echarmion

I know a few people in the Biden White House who are going to lose their jobs though. But yea, the US did a great job at making the Ukrainians do the dying for them. Good for them!

If he changed his tune that's too bad, but only illustrates he's loosing his grip on reality. — Echarmion

This is toddler level.

I figured you deserved a chance at a normal discussion, but alas, it seems I was wrong.

And they had objectives that were not met and occupying everything to the Western border wasn't that. But even those "limited" objective were not met. — ssu

Ok, so what do you believe those limited objectives were?

My guess would be something along the lines of:

- Occupy strategically vital areas, ergo landbridge to Crimea.
- Try to force the West to negotiate a quick end to the war through a show of force around the capital.

In March/April 2022 the West blocked a peace treaty that was in the final stages of being signed, signaling the end of the first 'phase' of the war. The Russians shifted gears, rearranged their lines to cover vital areas and be able to withstand a long war since they were probably overextended initially.

And that's pretty much the war in a nutshell.

The media has been propping up this war to no end, but it really isn't much more complicated than that.

Crimea became strategically vulnerable when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status. — Tzeentch

After 2014? — Echarmion

Clearly. All that connects Crimea to Russia is the Kerch bridge, which would not last a day under normal war-time conditions but was probably spared due to political reasons. (i.e. the Americans pressuring the Ukrainians not to push the Russians too far, as per arguments).

Imagine what the Russian situation would have looked like had the US been able to continue their militarization of Ukraine.

Oh really? What major maneuver forces were held back? — Echarmion

For example, only 20,000 Russian troops participated in the battle of Kiev. Woefully inadequate to effectively occupy a city of nearly 3 million inhabitants, not to mention the some 40,000 - 60,000 Ukrainian defenders. It's just not feasible by any stretch, considering a 3:1 advantage is pretty much the bare minimum for large-scale offensive operations.

There was a 3:1 advantage alright, in favor of the Ukrainians.

Of course, this was spun as a heroic defense by Ukraine. It obviously wasn't. The Russians rolled up to Kiev and then stood there for about a month to see if the negotiations would bear fruit. Skirmishes took place and of course the Russians took losses. That's what happens during war. The Russians aren't afraid to break a few eggs in order to bake an omelet.

Again you're mixing together times and places to create a lie. — Echarmion

No, I'm not.

The US was investing billions of dollars into Ukraine even before the Maidan and the 2014 Crimea invasion. That's what they're openly admitting.

Yeah "deeply involved", so what? — Echarmion

The US is admitting to giving the Ukrainians billions in military aid - a country that had a critical role of neutral buffer between East and West, and you say "so what"?

Well, so what? The Russians told us, over the course of some 20 years, that they view it as a threat to their vital security. We, the West, snubbed them at every turn because we thought they were weak.

To put it in academic terms; the US fucked around and found out.

Out of curiosity, I looked this up, but all that Mearsheimer says is that Russia would have been unable to take all of Ukraine, but he does actually say they intended to capture Kiev. — Echarmion

He does not. In his 2022 lectures he says something along the lines of 'the Russians intended to capture or threaten Kiev' (which was already a controversial statement at the time). In more recent lectures he states outright he doubts that the Russians ever intended to capture Kiev, and that's the argument I am making.

Your claim that Russia couldn't possibly have intended something that would have been a bad idea... — Echarmion

That's not my claim. I just think that's an extraordinarily weak explanation, probably borne of lazy thinking by lesser minds, and not really worth considering.

If the Russians are a bunch of dummies then why are we even discussing? Victory is surely right around the corner. I can't wait to see it.

If Russia was convinced they couldn't possibly occupy Ukraine because of US interference why did they think they could invade in the first place? — Echarmion

Ah, but here's the strategy.

The Russians bit off a strategically relevant chunk that is small enough for them to pacify.

I would not be surprised if there is going to be a second invasion of Ukraine which follows roughly the same pattern. Mearsheimer seems to believe as much. He expects the Russians to take another belt of oblasts to the west of what they have occupied now.

Personally, I have my doubts about that, as expressed in this comment.

You should tell the paratroopers at Hostomel. Or all the dead tank crews on the road to Kiev. — Echarmion

A failed raid or successful ambush tell us nothing about the actual goings-on of the war. These things are milked by the propaganda machine to no end, but you'll need to poke through that if you want to get a more accurate picture of the war.

War requires sacrifices and military friction supposes failures small and large. That's the nature of war.

Equally congruent is that Russia failed to reach it's goals. — ssu

Which would be incongruent with common military logic: why would Russia deploy a fraction of the troops required to occupy Ukraine?

And also with sensible strategic planning: why would Russia try to occupy a country which is already deeply enmeshed with the United States, with a gigantic insurgency being basically guaranteed?

Sure, one could hand-wave all of this under the idea that the Russians are simply incompetent, but that's a very weak explanation in my opinion.

Just look at how much Russia has gained more territory after the initial thrust. — ssu

The thing is, Russia not gaining more territory is entirely congruent with the view that Russia is pursuing limited goals in Ukraine,

which in turn would be much more in line with common military logic (troops counts, etc.),

which in turn would be much more in line with sensible strategic planning

which, I'll repeat it again, was likely first and foremost concerned with avoiding a repeat of the Soviet-Afghan War against a US-backed insurgency.

Let's remember that Russia has lost considerable territory as it lost the whole Kyiv front. — ssu

It's more accurate to say that the Russians left the Kiev front.

We know what bitter fighting looks like in the context of this war. It looks like Bahkmut, the Ukrainian offensive, Avdiivka, etc.

That's not what we saw in the north.

How many armored vehicles has Russia lost? How many artillery pieces? How many soldiers? — Echarmion

You can't win a war without taking casualties. Pretty obvious.

They already had Crimea. — Echarmion

Crimea became strategically vulnerable when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status.

...and also the evidence in the form of actual russian invasion routes. — Echarmion

If you're saying that, I highly doubt you actually understand the implications of the size and disposition of the initial Russian invasion force.

It's a clear indicator of the fact that they had limited objectives going in.

The evidence for this is flimsy... — Echarmion

Flimsy? It's right there on the US state department's website. :lol:

To date, we have provided approximately $44.2 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and more than $47 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. — Uncle Sam Himself

Or maybe you'd rather hear it from chief neocon Nuland in 2013. Even before the violent coup d'etat of 2014 the US was already deeply involved in Ukraine.

Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine. — Head Honcho Nuland

_

That Ukraine would fall within weeks. — Echarmion

I never said anything like that.

I've actually extensively argued the opposite. It is clear by Russian troop counts and disposition that capturing all of Ukraine (or Kiev, for that matter) was not their goal. And Mearsheimer makes that point as well.

Capturing all of Ukraine would be crazy, and would have invited an US-backed insurgency. In fact, there are good indications that is what the US was planning for.

Here is a lovely panel by CSIS in which they elaborately explain why occupying Ukraine would be a terrible idea, and how stupid the Russians are for trying it. The joke turned out to be on them, however, since the Russians never did.

They even invited Michael Vickers - the man responsible for the US-backed insurgency in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He literally states the insurgency they could create in Ukraine would be bigger than the one in Afghanistan.

They have no prospects of being able to occupy the country. Putin has said he has no intention of occupying. [...] If we support an insurgency Russian casualties will be through the roof. This will be-... This could be an insurgency that is bigger than our Afghan one in the 1980's in terms of things we could provide them that could really hurt Russians. — Michael G. Vickers

-

Plus there's the previous point about NATO membership being impossible since 2014. — Echarmion

The US was in the process of creating a fait accompli. They almost succeeded.

You make an awful lot of claims but never actually supply anything as justification. Just being able to quote Mearsheimer doesn't make you some sort of authority that merely has to share their wisdom. — Echarmion

Well, this is a discussion forum where people share and talk about their ideas. I'm more than comfortable within these topics not to have to cite sources for uncontroversial claims.

Whinging about sources only to instantly hand-wave them when they're provided is a game people here play a little too often, and nothing in your demeanor suggests it would be worth my time.

In fact, you're already hand-waving Mearsheimer. Clearly you're not interested in anything I'd have to share, so don't be so dishonest as to ask for it.

Is the war going terribly for Ukraine? By an objective standard, it's not. It went amazingly well earlier, so the current situation might look bad in comparison. But reducing Russia to fight a positional war on a peer footing isn't a small feat for a country that, in 2014, was barely able to react at all. — Echarmion

Very difficult to understand where you're coming from.

Because the Ukrainians put up a valiant fight means Ukraine is somehow not in the process of losing the war?

I'm sure this type of emotional support counts for something to some people, but it count for nothing in the world of geopolitics.

Nah. Russia had troops on Ukrainian soil since 2014 an no way in hell is anyone joining NATO that is currently fighting the russian army.

You're not getting around that simple fact. Probably you'll ignore it like the others that make this same argument. — Echarmion

Note, currently. Geopolitics is about the long-term, and the US has been arming and training the Ukrainians for an eventual war with Russia since at least 2014.

Well, they got their war.

If that was the plan then the Russian leadership must simply be stupid, since there's no way in hell these territories are worth burning through your entire stock of armaments. — Echarmion

Crimea is extremely important to the Russians, so I'd disagree.

If the Russians have burned through their entire stock of armaments, how come they are still winning in Ukraine? Are they continuing the fight with sticks and stones?

Their economy is better able to absorb this in the short term, but this will likely be cold comfort to the average russian when the state runs out of means to cushion the domestic economy. — Echarmion

Yes, and I'm sure that will happen any day now.

It's an absolute humiliation for Russia. No idea why you think the West is humiliated. — Echarmion

The US attempted to wrench Ukraine from underneath the Russians' noses, and spent some 10 years arming and training the Ukrainians for this very purpose. Financial investments go back even further. Ukraine is the US neocon project.

At every step the US doubled down and played hardball.

Then Russia drew its line and is currently winning against a combined economic bloc that has over 20 times its GDP.

Russia's economy would collapse, Putin would be overthrown, the army would rebel, etc. - the Russians would be pushed back to the border and Crimea would be liberated.

It's obviously a humiliation, given how hard they went in with the rhetoric.

You mean it's frustrating that your predictions were wrong but rather than face the facts you're just going to repeat them in the hope that they'll eventually turn out true. — Echarmion

What prediction are you even talking about?

Apparently Putin did not agree with that though. — Echarmion

You fail to understand that the creation of Ukraine was based on a mutual understanding between NATO and post-Soviet Russia that Ukraine was to be a neutral bufferzone, necessary to avoid conflict.

Given the agreement was respected, the issue of Sevastopol and Crimea was negligible and Russian security interests could be covered through the lend-lease agreement they had.

It's the Americans who in 2008 at the NATO Bucharest Summit stated that Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO", thus clearly signaling they were intending to change Ukraine's neutral status. That's what the Russians are and have been reacting to.

This isn't some effort of Russia to 'add Ukraine to its sphere of influence'. What a nonsensical view.

Just read the Western press. The fact that the war is going terribly for Ukraine and that Zelensky is facing heavy pressure domestically and internationally is not controversial.

Russia invaded Ukraine over NATO membership/US influence specifically, and the strategic vulnerability of Crimea more broadly. They have successfully waylaid plans for Ukrainian NATO membership, and have taken 20% of Ukraine in the process, creating a landbridge to Crimea.

The Ukrainian military and economy are badly battered and basically on permanent life-support.

It's an absolute humiliation for the West, considering how the propaganda machine tried to spin the war and how Europe and the establishment media all, for some reason, jumped on the neocon bandwagon straight into this disaster.

That this would be the predictable outcome was clear to many when the war started back in 2022, and it has been quite frustrating to see how Western opinion got hijacked by propaganda and prolonged this copium-fueled war when it could have ended in March/April 2022. But people started to believe their own bullshit fairytales about pushing the Russians back to the border and out of Crimea.

Ukraine's bargaining position has only deteriorated since then, and it still is deteriorating further. Zelensky and the neocons will be unable to admit defeat, and prolong Ukraine's suffering at least until the 2024 elections, which in a cruel irony Biden is set to lose anyway.

The Russians with their tiny economy somehow managed to completely outfox the collective West. Again, it's the price the West pays for delusional leadership, but it's sad for the Ukrainians that they are the ones that have to pay the bill.

Right, small states should just always do what their bigger neighbours want and not try to get out of there sphere of influence. — Echarmion

Ukraine was not in Russia's sphere of influence prior to the war, and its presidents actually did a fairly decent job at balancing between western and Russian interests. That balancing act is the price to pay for a small nation to exist between two large blocs.

Letting the Americans lead them down the primrose path was foolish in the extreme.

I am completely aware that larger armies can simply tire of fighting and go home and that is one potential outcome in any war, that's why I literally say so. — boethius

Hard to see the Russians going home.

I can't really blame anyone for not looking through the constant propaganda barrage, but the Russians are on track to decisively win the war.

Pressure on Zelensky is growing to start negotiations with the Russians. He has cancelled elections because by now everybody understands Zelensky wouldn't be re-elected. People within the Ukrainian military and political establishment are starting to admit that things are much worse than the media makes them appear.

While Zelensky is still trying to sell the myth of a Ukrainian offensive, both people in Ukraine and the Western media are openly saying its a stalemate, Ukraine is running out of men, etc.

But it's not a stalemate. Ukraine is losing, and it's losing decisively. That's why the pressure is growing. Sensible people understand that the longer Ukraine waits to negotiate, the more Ukraine's negotiating position will deteriorate.

'Stalemate' is just a cope term, to save face, to avoid having to admit defeat to domestic audiences, and to not have to utter the words "the Russians won".

The bottomline now is that Ukraine is not going to join NATO, and the question is whether negotiations will be able to produce something that the West and Ukraine can prop up to their domestic populations.

EU-membership might be that thing, though it's questionable whether this is realistic considering how utterly broken Ukraine is, and the fact that the EU has some pretty strict criteria on whether a country can join. It might simply be a carrot to dangle infront of Zelensky's face to get him to negotiate, or to give Zelensky something to sell to Ukrainians as a 'victory'.


I think this is all quite bleak and tragic, especially for Ukraine itself. I can't imagine having to make such sacrifices only for it to be in vain. But that's the price to pay for politicians who deal in delusions and fairy tales.

There are winners of conflicts and wars. Why otherwise would humans be so eager to fight wars if everybody would lose? — ssu

Profound ignorance, mostly.

Nonsense.

Moderates can perfectly fight wars. It's the "bitter enders" that simply lose everything. — ssu

Everybody loses.

That is to say, I think it rather fantastical as a solution. — schopenhauer1

I'll readily admit it is very idealistic. But it is not fantastical. History has known individiuals who were able to bridge large gaps between peoples.

But I think you know my views of what the realist/probable outcome is, which is why I believe the idealist option is worth investigating.

Well, expelling more people from their decades-long homes is not the way forward.

One would have to start somewhere, and the idea that every Israeli owes every Palestinian their home and reparations is obviously not a viable starting point.

There'd have to be an acceptance of the state of things in the present day, though that doesn't mean past grievances shouldn't be addressed. Indeed that is a fundamental part of reconciliation.

Assuming goodwill on both sides, I'm sure some proper substance can be given to the right of return, like housing projects or priority when houses become vacant.

I'm talking a usual sticking point, the "right of return" from 1948 War. — schopenhauer1

In a secular state, the land would belong to all citizens, people would be free to move wherever, assuming there is housing available.

But also, let's say Israel deems that there are parts of the West Bank that are strategically very hard for Israel to maintain security and have to have some Israeli oversight, those kind of things as well. — schopenhauer1

The Israeli army would remain the Israeli army, but would be ran by both Israelis and Palestinians. So theoretically it would double the manpower pool from which the Israeli army can tap.

Further, I think the single greatest contribution to Israeli security would be solving the issue of millions of angry Palestinians that are sitting within its de facto borders.

To be clear, I don't think it would be easy to arrive at a secular state. But necessary, perhaps.

So this is where I keep railing against the idea of "I want my OLIVE GROVES". In other words, just as Israeli extremists who want to settle "Samaria and Judea" is wrong, so is this idea that every past event has to be relived and violently opposed by generations that follow. Palestinians have to want to live in peace and probably be okay with some sort of monetary compensation rather than land. Land is such an OVERRATED value. It's a fetish even. Israel needs some land, and Palestinians need some land. It doesn't need to be THAT land. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what you mean.

If we assume for a moment a new secular state is created, then no one would be forced to move. Everybody could live where they currently do, or move to other places within Israel voluntarily. Of course some sort of reconciliation would have to have taken place.

Are you suggesting paying Palestinians money to leave voluntarily, or letting them settle some new land?

It seems we are mostly in agreement then, but on the most important point we diverge:

1. Renounce the idea of turning Israel into a Jewish nation state. — Tzeentch

Ok so that's unrealistic. Israel's whole existence is to have a place in the world where there can't be more pogroms and holocausts (which makes this of course all the more traumatic). — schopenhauer1

Yes. Israel was created with the idea of providing Jews with a safe haven. There is nothing inherently wrong with that idea, except for the fact that Britain and France chose to worst possible way to go about it and now we have to deal with the imperfect situation they created.

Lets also acknowledge that Israel is a far cry from the safe haven that it was supposed to be, and unless a different path is chosen this is unlikely to change.


Now we have the problem that on the territory of Israel + the occupied territories, there live roughly as many Jews as Muslims. This is the fundamental issue.

I'm assuming everybody in this thread agrees that:
1. Apartheid is unacceptable. That means equal rights for Jews and Muslims.
2. Ethnic cleansing / forced displacement is unacceptable.

That means that the demographics as they are now are basically what we have to work with. This means that Israel cannot be a Jewish nation state, since half its population is Muslim.


A two-state solution is, in my opinion, unworkable from literally every perspective. You'd simply end up with two extremely vulnerable states, likely with plenty of animosity and territorial disputes between them. I would predict within ten or twenty years there'd be a conflict that wipes one or both states off the map. Not to mention the settlers on the West Bank are never going to leave peacefully.


What other options are there?

Resigning seems like a shortcut, a way to answer the question without answering the question. — flannel jesus

There is no other way to answer the question. Any solution I could propose would require the Netanyahu regime to leave first.

After that it's pretty straight-forward:
1. Renounce the idea of turning Israel into a Jewish nation state.
2. Immediately stop settling the West Bank.
3. Give Palestinians equal rights and stop mass human rights abuses in the occupied territories.
4. Garner help and support from the international community (including Arab states) to integrate Israel and Palestine into a state where Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully.
5. If successful steps are taken towards these goals, start removal of the West Bank barrier and lift the siege/embargo on Gaza.

Of course, this could take a long time and appropriate caution must be applied. If Hamas continues terrorist strikes, retaliate accurately and proportionately. Hamas will completely isolate itself over time, since everyone will recognize that it is standing in the way of a genuine solution.

Further, no longer committing mass human rights abuses on the Palestinian people will drastically reduce if not outright remove the motivation to join terrorist organisations.


Any of this would be anathema to the Netanyahu regime, who will not be able to get past the first point. They are essentially ultranationalists, and no real solution exists within that paradigm.

How should they have handled 10-7 as prime minister? Your citizens were raped, you had babies burned, people shot in cars and their bodies paraded around and shot in real time, you had 250 people kidnapped, and you had hundreds (1400+ people) killed in a one day operation. Okay, well, we already know that you failed in terms of intelligence... What would you do? This group is also responsible for helping screw up the Oslo Accords in the 90s with suicide bombers, and has been sending rockets to Israel, trying to provoke war for years. Also, let's factor out prior politics. Let's just say this is the situation you are given. What do you do? You have a lethal Jihadist entity next to you that showed you a taste of what it would love to do to every one of the people in your country until it gets what it wants. Do you leave that entity intact? Do you sue for peace and give in?

I know your answer is going to be, hold steady and bring the case to the UN for review, right? Get world sympathy from former colonial powers in NATO so that you have enough support from the sideliners to get the bad guys? — schopenhauer1

I would have secured the border and subsequently resigned. Getting the Netanyahu regime out of power is the first step to creating any sort of workable future for Israel.

Well, around 1991 it started the Oslo Accords peace process, which failed... — schopenhauer1

Where were the UN / international / US-led efforts to enforce them?

As I noted in an earlier post, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can be expected to drag this cart along - at least not over the initial bump. The US being the global hegemon after 1991 was in a prime position to do just that.

Did any party to the Oslo Accords show any true dedication to implementing it?

Personally, I think not. And of course all parties deserve blame for that, but it is primarily the US that was in a position to push for it.

Again, why does this always go back to the US' fault. — schopenhauer1

1. Because the US after 1991 to a large extent dominated the world, and certainly the Middle-East.
2. Because it's US 'divide & conquer' policy that has perpetuated chaos and conflict in the Middle-East.

Do you know why the Netherlands doesn't have to spend gross amounts of money on its military? — schopenhauer1

I do, and personally I am opposed to the Netherlands forfeiting its sovereignty that way.

The world we live in is US backed, but European created my friend. — schopenhauer1

In 1945 you would have a point. We are now 75 years on during all of which the US has been the most powerful nation on the planet, and during 30 years of which the US was the global unipole. Europeans on their end acted as obedient vassals.

So no. The world we live in is US-created, just like the world in 1945 was European-created.

What should their tactic be when opposing forces of Islamic Jihad (that is Hamas Hezbollah Iran, and the like)? — schopenhauer1

Moderates cannot fight extremists almost by definition, because moderates tend to be reasonable human beings who aren't willing to resort to any means necessary to get what they want.

We see this everywhere, even in 'civilized' countries: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin, etc.

It also doesn't help when certain hegemonic unipoles go around sowing chaos and death, purposefully putting radicals in power and killing off moderates to avoid "regional rivals" from getting too prosperous (aka, US Middle-East policy).

We know what happens to moderates in places like this - they get strung up from the nearest tree. The extremists rule through terror and an iron fist. Opposing them is signing oneself up for death and torture.

But extremism is often reactionary, and in the Middle-East it is very obvious what it is reacting to - constant Western meddling, divide & conquer, etc.

Why does it seem like Britain, France, and Western Europe etc downplay their hand in this and colonialism in general and just are content putting the onus on the US and Israel for problems they generally caused in their imperialism? — schopenhauer1

The obvious answer is because after 1945 the United States became the world's most powerful nation and its 'special relationship' with Israel disallowed any other power to interfere with its foreign politics.

After 1991 the US became the global unipole and dominated the world for some 30 years.

What did it do in those 30 years? Did it seek to take away the root causes of extremism in the Middle-East?

No, to the contrary - the destabilization of the Middle-East runs like a red line through the American 'unipolar moment'.

In fact, the situation in the Middle-East has probably never been worse.