The argument was that Russia cannot demand that western nations bar Ukraine's NATO entry. — Echarmion

Sovereign countries can apply freely to international organizations.

When btw Russia started to make demands just who can and cannot join NATO was when Finnish leadership understood that the country had to apply for NATO membership, not just have it as an option and still stay out of it.

You could simply provide evidence of your claim. — Echarmion

I did.

I've provided accounts of the people directly involved, accounts of people indirectly involved, reports by prominent UN and NATO representatives, opinion pieces by prominent academics, etc.

All "a flight of fantasy", of course.

This is why you're not taken seriously. You don't seem to realize that reality won't budge any further to accomodate your narrative.

I've provided accounts of the people directly involved, accounts of people indirectly involved, — Tzeentch

Which either did not say what you claim they did or merely noted their "impressions"

reports by prominent UN and NATO representatives, etc. — Tzeentch

"Prominent" as in claim to have worked for them in the past. Posting their views on some obscure blog, quoting themselves.

This is why you're not taken seriously. You don't seem to realize that reality won't budge any further to accomodate your narrative. — Tzeentch

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Sadly for you, the people I've quoted aren't so easily hand-waved, desperately though you may try.

Russia says coexistence with Ukraine impossible, Zelenskyy vows to protect freedom (Global News · 4m:3s · Nov 21, 2023)

The current regime that exists on the territory of Ukraine has proven to be completely toxic.
We do not currently see any options to coexist with it.
So, [if] all goes like the President (Vladimir Putin) said:
Maximum denazification and demilitarization [will] set [Ukraine] free from the external influence and external management [in the West] — which is dangerous for the Russian Federation and those who live in Russia.
When this danger is eliminated, the goals of the special military operation are achieved.
NATO commits its own violations which they should be held accountable for.
Those include weaponry supplies, violation of the norms, when they openly support the conflict and supply banned weaponry, when they actively cover for and legalize the actions of the Ukrainian regime, including in the international institutions.

We can counter NATO [for] as long as [is] needed to achieve the task set by the President.
And our task is to eliminate the danger that we face from Ukraine. — Rodion Miroshnik · Russian ambassador-at large

It's not specifically about NATO, it's about anything getting in the way of Putin's geo-military-political power/control aspirations (from memory, Mearsheimer commented similarly about those aspirations/goals). Well, NATO is still around, Putin's Soviet Union is not. And NATO is in the way of Putin's free international rein.

Russia's offer was a ceasefire in place. — Echarmion

Again, just inventing things that would be convenient if it were true.

Are you just repeating myths that circulate in "pro-Ukrainian" echo-chambers on Reddit or Facebook and simply assuming they must be based on "something" or do you just do cursory research to get a vague impression of what you're looking for?

By 16 March, Mykhailo Podoliak was assigned as the chief negotiator for the Ukrainian peace delegation, who indicated that peace negotiations of a 15-point plan would involve the retraction of Russian forces from their advanced positions in Ukraine, along with international guarantees for military support and alliance in case of renewed Russian military action, in return for Ukraine not pursuing further affiliation with NATO. — Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

And, obviously, the Russian offer before the war would have occurred without any Russian forces outside of Crimea.

It is quite usual for ceasefires to also be negotiated during a war, for humanitarian purposes (such as we see in the Hamas-Isreali conflict) and / or as an attempt to deescalate the situation to give time for leaders to focus on peace negotiations.

However, trying to present the various Russian offers at different times as only ever involving a ceasefire in place is either a straight up lie or you are totally ignorant of events and have no intention to make yourself not-ignorant.

You're also directly contradicting the Reuters article I cited, which clearly describes an offer that it not a ceasefire in place, so if someone's already presented authoritative evidence to support a claim, your evidence that claim is wrong should be ... well, more than zero evidence.

No, they didn't. — Echarmion

Again, just thinking backwards to making things up that would be convenient to be true.

"Everyone" in the context refers to members of the forum commenting on events and also mainstream media, such as Reuters. But, even so, can you even provide evidence of "someone" understanding the Russian offer different at the time?

Then no doubt you can provide relevant evidence. — Echarmion

Are you really doubting that there was not huge amount of analysis of this war and the Russian peace terms as reported by Reuters?

I can provide you the evidence (already on this forum is a huge amount of analysis at the time), but I'd like to first confirm that you truly doubt there was a huge amount of analysis at the time reflecting what the Reuters report says about Russias offered terms.

No, that was not understood. You seem to be confusing a ceasefire with a peace treaty. — Echarmion

Read the Wikipedia article that's literally called "Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine".

Where do you get that Russia was only ever offering a ceasefire in place? Especially before the 2022 war even occurred?

Again, just making things up, trying to create plausible deniability that there were reasonable terms on offer (reasonable in the sense of preferable to the situation for Ukraine now).

But even so, a ceasefire in place is better than losing the war. Even if your made-up version of history is correct, that Russia was only ever offering a ceasefire in place, that is certainly preferable to losing the war and all the destruction and death that has happened since.

Ok, you claim Ukraine may still win, war's not over.

Sure, but that is simply agreeing to the main point of contention here: that whatever terms Ukraine was offered, it would have been better to accept compared to losing the war, or even accepting a ceasefire in place now or at some point in the future at the current lines (which get worse, and not better, for Ukraine everyday).

If Ukraine was right to reject a ceasefire in place, it needs something to show for that too.

Correct. — Echarmion

Well then we agree on the main point of contention as far as I'm concerned.

In terms of learning something to avoid future disastrous wars, the main thing of interest to me is at what points was peace achievable through talking.

The problem Ukraine gets into is that it repudiates negotiations and commits itself to achieving a better negotiation position by military means.

When I say Zelensky repudiates further peace negotiations is because he starts making both public conditions and public ultimatums to even have further peace talks.

President Zelenskyy denounced suggestions by former US diplomat Henry Kissinger that Ukraine should cede control of Crimea and Donbas to Russia in exchange for peace.[75] On 25 May, Zelenskyy said that Ukraine would not agree to peace until Russia agreed to return Crimea and the Donbas region to Ukraine.[76] Zelenskyy stressed that "Ukrainians are not ready to give away their land, to accept that these territories belong to Russia." He emphasized that Ukrainians own the land of Ukraine.[77] As of September 2022, these peace negotiations have been frozen indefinitely.[citation needed]

Peace talks: Third phase of invasion (6 September to present)
September 2022
In September, Ukraine rejected a peace plan proposed by Mexico.[78]

On 21 September, Zelenskyy addressed the UN General Assembly with a pre-recorded video, laying out five "non-negotiable" conditions for a "peace formula", comprising "just punishment" of Russia for its crimes committed against Ukraine, protection of life by "all available means allowed by the UN charter", restoring security and territorial integrity, security guarantees from other countries, and determination for Ukraine to continue defending itself.[79][80] Speaking to Bild, Zelenskyy stated that he saw little chance of holding talks with Putin unless Russia withdrew its forces from Ukrainian territory.[81] Following Putin's announcement of Russia annexing four regions of Ukrainian territory it had seized during its invasion, Zelenskyy announced that Ukraine would not hold peace talks with Russia while Putin was president.[82] — Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

So, ok, Zelensky can insist on the return of Crimea or stating Russia should withdraw first and then peace talks can maybe happen, but this is incredibly foolish if you are unable to improve your position on the battlefield.

Henry Kissinger is obviously correct in his assessment at the time.

Well I'm glad to hear people here had enough sense not to. — Echarmion

This is what people here would claim, that there was not "enough' Nazi's in Ukraine to justify invasion. I simply asked if there's not enough to justify invasion, what's the definition of enough.

People make a claim with the term "enough" in it, and I simply ask for the definition of this term in the context.

For, unlike yourself, other interlocutors here wouldn't simply wantonly invent facts and rewrite history wantonly for their own convenience, and did recognize that clearly the overtly Nazi battalions in Ukraine were not a good thing, they just claimed there weren't enough of them to justify invasion. The question of what would be enough to justify invasion is a pretty common sense question.

The argument was that Russia cannot demand that western nations bar Ukraine's NATO entry. — Echarmion

Russia obviously can demand this, and NATO could agree to it and likewise Ukraine could agree to it.

Fighting a war for the right to join an organization that has had 3 decades to let you in at anytime but hasn't, is just completely dumb.

The neutrality of states in between larger powers is a common theme of negotiation throughout history and happens all the time, precisely to avoid the kind of war that is currently happening.

Nazi Germany and Japan were both sovereign nation in WWII, why should they need to accept terms of surrender and accept enemy troops on their lands!?!?

Because they lost the fucking war!! Obviously no nation "wants to" accept any concessions to a hostile force, the whole thing about war is resolving what you can't actually have just because you want it.

Ukraine can't have NATO, which is just as much NATO's doing as it is Russia's.

Which just makes the whole war even more stupid, as Ukraine has consistently refused to give up what it doesn't even have, and the key point of contention leading up to war (and to make matters worse, the whole point of wanting to be in NATO is to avoid precisely the war that is currently happening; and NATO encouraging Ukraine to fight a war with a geopolitical rival for "the right to join NATO" and maybe actual protection by NATO from Russia if Ukraine first goes and "earns it" by defeating Russia first on behalf of NATO ... it's just ridiculous reasoning).

Most previous wars were at least fought over what countries did actually possess before the war started.

This is just reality. If you want to fight a war to protect some possession or right (in this case a meaningless symbolic "right to want to join NATO"), the critical question is whether you are going to win or not.

Even Disney understands this:

The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man or you can't. But pirate is in your blood, boy, so you'll have to square with that some day. — Captain Jack Sparrow

But that's relatively easy. They're fighting an aggressor who violated their undisputed borders repeatedly (and who also has a treaty obligation to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine), and they have not committed any kind of crime against humanity which might in extreme cases justify a war of aggression. — Echarmion

It's not easy at all, first language and cultural repression and shelling the separatists are crimes against humanity committed by overt Nazi's (that even the Western media would go and report on before they "got the memo" that the Nazi's were the good guys actually), but second it is a completely legitimate political action to seek separation after the coup in 2014.

Ukraine elected a president, the "will of the people" spoke, and that the president can negotiate foreign policy are part of the democratic rules. If the president is removed in an illegal coup, it's perfectly reasonable to call the new government illegitimate and secede. Once you've seceded it's perfectly legitimate to seek allies to come to your defence.

From 2014 to 2022 it is Ukraine that is waging a war of reconquering the separatist territories. If it's perfectly just cause to secede after an illegal coup, then Ukraine's war of aggression against the separatists is not just cause, making the separatists invitation of Russian forces to enter the war completely legitimate.

Western countries literally had to pass laws specifying that lethal aid to Ukraine was not to go to the Nazi's and Western journalists go and report that definitely lethal aid is going straight to the Nazi's. The Nazi's were not some marginal and illegal gang but had official support from both Ukraine and the West, and I honestly don't see much of a problem waging a war against said Nazi's.

My grandfather fought the Nazi's, nearly all his friends he had in the airforce died, and I'd be spitting on his grave if I'd view a conflict with literal and overt Nazi's as "relatively easy" to prove the side with said Nazi's has just cause.

But even without the Nazi's, if Ukraine has a right to self-determination so too the separatists.

Who doesn't have a right to self determination is all the Ukrainian men that cannot leave Ukraine and can be forced to fight by the government ... and why? To protect the right of self determination of Ukraine?

So, we can get into the philosophy of just war if you want, but that seems secondary to the issue of whether there was reasonable terms on offer and, whatever terms were on offer, if Ukraine had more leverage to get a better deal before or at the start of the war, compared to now.

What should be perfectly clear is that fighting for the right to join a club that doesn't let you join, is not just cause but a stupid cause.

Separatism is a thorny issue at the best of times, and the Donbas separatists lack any convincing popular legitimacy. — Echarmion

What are you even talking about?

Convincing popular legitimacy in all of Ukraine?? Obviously not, that's what makes them separatists.

Or are you saying they lacked popular legitimacy in the Donbas ?

But yes, it is a thorny issue at the best of times, and therefore it is not a relatively easy issue, but a thorny issue at the best of times, to conclude Ukraine has just cause.

To blanket condemn separatism would of course be a condemnation of the United States and their little revolution and that they did not have just cause, the US of A is an immoral and illegal enterprise, and Biden should go and kneel before King Charles tomorrow and kiss the ring and give back to the crown what is rightfully his majesties property.

So, certainly just cause for the separatists is on the table, and the separatists cannot be said to be attacking the rest of Ukraine (as the front line was pretty deep in separatists terriroty), so it is clearly a war of aggression by Ukraine against the separatists to reintegrate the breakaway regions.

The separatists clearly have a right to self defence and if that requires asking Russia for help and Russia wrecking the rest of Ukraine to protect the separatists, seems perfectly legal to me. If the seceding is triggered by an illegal coup, seems entirely legal to me.

The social contract of being in a larger political unit is that the rules are followed. A president was elected to Ukraine and the rules are the president has certain powers and serves a certain term; those rules aren't followed, social contract is broken, perfectly reasonable and legitimate (and therefore just cause) to then secede from an illegitimate national government.

If you want to argue that following an illegal coup in Kiev there were equally illegal coups in the Donbas, I fail to see how such an argument, even if true (which I don't think it is), would establish anything other than both the Kiev National government and the local governments in the Donbas lack just cause.

Even if it wasn't, it was not remotely significant enough to be cause for an invasion. — Echarmion

It's completely enough justification. If you shell civilians you should expect anyone with a sense of duty to protect said civilians to do so.

The justification for wrecking Libya was that civilians "might" be shelled.

At the least Russia also failed to implement it's obligations under Minsk. — Echarmion

I don't know all the details of the Minsk process, if both parties were bad faith then the weaker party is far stupider for being bad faith than the stronger party (see Captain Jack Sparrow's analysis above), but what is an overriding consideration is the West simply admitting that the whole process was in bad faith to "buy time" for Ukraine. So if you have one side literally admitting the process is bad faith, seems irrelevant to try to nitpick about the other side "starting it" in terms of clashes and so on.

Ukraine was anyways in the separatist regions territory, if Ukraine was of good will about the accords (and had the sense to want to avoid a larger war with Russia) then they would have withdrawn to positions where clashes were no longer possible.

There's also video of Zelensky going and trying to order the Nazi's about, saying he's the president and so on, which they just openly defy him about. Nazi's who explicitly say they want a larger war with Russia.

So, maybe consider the possibility that the side with the literal Nazi's who want to escalate the war to be directly with Russia (believing this will collapse Russia somehow and Ukraine superiority will win somehow) is the side that frustrated peace accords previous to the larger war the Nazi's were explicitly trying to cause.

Or it can blow up the negotiations because now one side is compelled to accuse the other of lying to avoid fatally compromising their position. It's a dangerous game to play. — Echarmion

You're claim was that offers in serious negotiations aren't made public, to support your previous claim that "we don't know much about" the negotiations and what, if anything, Russia was offering, which you now just casually move the goal posts to this entirely new claim, that basically it maybe unwise to make your position public.

But you don't know what you're talking about. Making a negotiation position public does not compel a counter-party to call you a liar, why would it? If you outright say in public your position on selling your pants is 10 dollars, why would I call you a liar? If it's some "more serious" negotiation, again why would I call you a liar?

From your own sources:

Russian officials said Moscow's demands included Ukraine's recognition of Russia's hold on Crimea, independence for the separatist-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as "de-militarisation" and "de-Nazification".

The ultimatums Ukraine refused were tied to its"demilitarization," and mechanisms that would ensure it, which would amount to laying down their arms before an enemy that had just invaded them. The "de-Nazification" in practice, was a demand that Russia be allowed to pick who could remain in Ukraine's government.

The claim that there was ever and "offer for peace in exchange for not joining NATO," is patently false. Russia has continued to include these demands relative to neutering Ukraine's ability to resist future invasions and the right to select who can hold political office in the country.

Second, the seriousness of Russia's desires for a merely "independent Donbass" is belied by the fact that they officially annexed those regions, and southern Ukraine not long after.

The credibility of Russia in a deal predicated on "giving up Ukraine's means of self defense," strains credulity considering how they had just vociferously denied that they were going to invade Ukraine, calling the build up for the invasion "military exercises." I recall Lavrov declaring how the West would be "embarrassed" by the fact that all the Russian soldiers would simply return to their barracks, and blamed the US in particular for "building up hysteria" about a possible invasion. That was, in retrospect, obviously just patent lies.

There's also video of Zelensky going and trying to order the Nazi's about, saying he's the president and so on, which they just openly defy him about. Nazi's who explicitly say they want a larger war with Russia.

The side (singular) with Nazis. :roll: I have already shown you in this thread that Wagner operates an explicitly Neo-Nazi unit for recruitment and that a senior leader in the group has an SS tattoo across his chest. Funny how Nazism is such a threat, and yet armed Neo Nazis operating within Russia proper can be tolerated so long as they do the bidding of Putin. He only seemed to sour on such things when a former caterer was forcing him to flee his capital (hasn't the war made Russia safer!?)

Aside from the, it's hard to see how Duginism isn't fascism. Is it the Swastika that makes the fascist?

Again, just inventing things that would be convenient if it were true.

Are you just repeating myths that circulate in "pro-Ukrainian" echo-chambers on Reddit or Facebook and simply assuming they must be based on "something" or do you just do cursory research to get a vague impression of what you're looking for? — boethius

You yourself posted the Reuters report. It said Russia would "halt military operations".

That is what you have offered regarding the russian proposal. Noone doubts the ukrainian proposal involves Russia retreating.

And, obviously, the Russian offer before the war would have occurred without any Russian forces outside of Crimea. — boethius

An offer which we also do not know.

You're also directly contradicting the Reuters article I cited, which clearly describes an offer that it not a ceasefire in place, — boethius

Halting your military operations is a ceasefire.

"Everyone" in the context refers to members of the forum commenting on events and also mainstream media, such as Reuters. But, even so, can you even provide evidence of "someone" understanding the Russian offer different at the time? — boethius

Why would I need to do that? It's your claim not mine.

Again, just thinking backwards to making things up that would be convenient to be true.

"Everyone" in the context refers to members of the forum commenting on events and also mainstream media, such as Reuters. But, even so, can you even provide evidence of "someone" understanding the Russian offer different at the time? — boethius

I'm doubting the analysis says what you claim it does.

Where do you get that Russia was only ever offering a ceasefire in place? Especially before the 2022 war even occurred? — boethius

This is not a claim I'm making. I'm saying what you quoted describes a ceasefire in place.

Sure, but that is simply agreeing to the main point of contention here: that whatever terms Ukraine was offered, it would have been better to accept compared to losing the war — boethius

That is moving the goalposts a fair bit. You have consistently claimed that Ukraine would have been better off accepting the deal on offer early in the war, rather than keep fighting. That's a very different argument.

The problem Ukraine gets into is that it repudiates negotiations and commits itself to achieving a better negotiation position by military means. — boethius

And this, according to you, is somehow a bad thing?

Russia obviously can demand this, and NATO could agree to it and likewise Ukraine could agree to it. — boethius

Right, they could, but NATO would take a serious hit to its international standing, while leaving Ukraine out in the cold.

I understand you'd hand Russia the keys to the city and the nuclear codes too, if it'd avoid a war, but that is your opinion.

Most previous wars were at least fought over what countries did actually possess before the war started. — boethius

I think you missed the part where Russia annexed significant parts of Ukraine. But I guess the west forced them to do that.

It's not easy at all, first language and cultural repression and shelling the separatists are crimes against humanity committed by overt Nazi's — boethius

If you want to be taken seriously, it'd help if you didn't just repeat russian propaganda. There was no Nazi oppression of Donbas.

but second it is a completely legitimate political action to seek separation after the coup in 2014. — boethius

It's not. There's no recognised right to separation under international law and you haven't made any moral case either.

and I honestly don't see much of a problem waging a war against said Nazi's. — boethius

You cannot wage a war against some political group in another country, and in any event that's not what happened.

But even without the Nazi's, if Ukraine has a right to self-determination so too the separatists. — boethius

Not under current international law.

Who doesn't have a right to self determination is all the Ukrainian men that cannot leave Ukraine and can be forced to fight by the government ... and why? To protect the right of self determination of Ukraine? — boethius

That's not how any of this works.

Or are you saying they lacked popular legitimacy in the Donbas ? — boethius

Yes. The organic separatist movements in the Donbas were very localised and nothing really got off the ground until mercenaries arrived from Crimea. Even then the separatists quickly fizzled out in most areas apart from a few strongholds - notably Donetsk city.

The separatists clearly have a right to self defence and if that requires asking Russia for help and Russia wrecking the rest of Ukraine to protect the separatists, seems perfectly legal to me. — boethius

I have no doubt it seems that way to you, but it is not legal. You cannot declare yourself a separatist and ask your neighbour to invade. It should be obvious why.

The social contract of being in a larger political unit is that the rules are followed. A president was elected to Ukraine and the rules are the president has certain powers and serves a certain term; those rules aren't followed, social contract is broken, perfectly reasonable and legitimate (and therefore just cause) to then secede from an illegitimate national government. — boethius

That might be an interesting question in the abstract but it is not what happened. Most of the unrest in Donbas coincided not with the Euromaidan but with the seizure of Crimea. It was also short lived until Igor Girkin, a Moscow born russian, started taking over cities with a band of mercenaries.

The justification for wrecking Libya was that civilians "might" be shelled. — boethius

And look how well that turned out.

Ukraine was anyways in the separatist regions territory, if Ukraine was of good will about the accords (and had the sense to want to avoid a larger war with Russia) then they would have withdrawn to positions where clashes were no longer possible — boethius

Ah yes more excellent advice from boethius. Just retreat. What's the worst that can happen?

You're claim was that offers in serious negotiations aren't made public, to support your previous claim that "we don't know much about" the negotiations and what, if anything, Russia was offering, which you now just casually move the goal posts to this entirely new claim, that basically it maybe unwise to make your position public. — boethius

This is an insipid and pointless sideshow.

You have claimed Russia offered to retreat to the February 2022 starting points in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. It's upon you to provide evidence of this, which so far you haven't done.

I ultimately don't care one way or the other whether you believe diplomatic negotiations happen in public.

The ultimatums Ukraine refused were tied to its"demilitarization," and mechanisms that would ensure it, which would amount to laying down their arms before an enemy that had just invaded them. The "de-Nazification" in practice, was a demand that Russia be allowed to pick who could remain in Ukraine's government. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The point at issue was whether the Russia was offering only a "cease-fire" in place and did not include a withdrawal.

Of course, Russian offers to withdraw clearly never included Crimea, and Russian demands before the war included some form of autonomy for the Donbas region (as the Minsk accords clearly outline) and during the war the language of "independence" started to be used (such as in the Reuters article), but it was clearly understood by not only the people her eon the forum, Western media, but also Ukraine itself that Russia would be withdrawing from the rest of Ukraine and the Donbas status would not be part of Russia but some intermediary status.

Now, the Russian demands of "de-Nazification" as you describe, control over who is allowed to be in the Ukraine government, could be understood as genuine, or then as starting a negotiation "high" and then settling lower. It was pretty popular in Western analysis to assume that Putin was looking for an "off ramp" that allowed ending the war on an acceptable compromise. Especially as the West was taken for granted at the time that the war was going terribly for Russia and therefore Russia could be anyways be pressured into a peace that was "pretty good" for Ukraine; the issue of contention all the way back then was if providing an "off ramp" would be some sort of reward for Putin and if the war was anyways a good thing to harm Russia in the long term.

It could be equally argued that Russia was "starting high" as they never intended to make any peace deal at all and it was all theatre, and therefore always kept terms "just out of reach" of a reasonable compromise, which the West also claimed as presented in the Wikipedia article:

Following the talks, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned that Russia was only "pretending to negotiate", in line with a strategy it has used elsewhere. — Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

But notice now the French Foreign Minister wasn't actually there, and as far as I know no one involved in these negotiations insists on the idea that they were fake.

If we return to the source we seem both content to use as a basis to the discussion, Zelensky is presented as stating:

The two sides resumed talks on 15 March,[6] after which Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the talks as beginning to "sound more realistic" — Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

Followed by a description of the negotiation:

By 16 March, Mykhailo Podoliak was assigned as the chief negotiator for the Ukrainian peace delegation, who indicated that peace negotiations of a 15-point plan would involve the retraction of Russian forces from their advanced positions in Ukraine, along with international guarantees for military support and alliance in case of renewed Russian military action, in return for Ukraine not pursuing further affiliation with NATO — Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia

So, clearly there were terms being discussed that seemed "realistic" even to Zelensky at some point.

If the Russians started with some demands that didn't seem realistic, clearly they were flexible on those points, which is how negotiations often go.

Now, what is interesting is that any retrospective narrative placing the blame on Russia for the failure of good faith peace negotiations to find a reasonable compromise, is completely incompatible with the main Western narrative at the time which was that the Russian invasion was a failure and Putin was looking for an off-ramp. Indeed, we've just spent several pages re-discussing this topic of "incompetence".

The claim that there was ever and "offer for peace in exchange for not joining NATO," is patently false. Russia has continued to include these demands relative to neutering Ukraine's ability to resist future invasions and the right to select who can hold political office in the country. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What's the evidence for this? This is literally the first time I've heard of this.

I can go back and start citing what was being discussed at the time, both here and in the mainstream media, but I have zero memory of anyone stating Russia was insisting on deciding who holds office in Ukraine; what I do remember is pages and pages of discussion about the meaning of "guarantee" since at one point Zelensky was complaining that a peace agreement could not be guaranteed in some sort of absolute sense (which is basically the ontological status of guarantee: a promise that may or may not be fullfilled), and we discussed at length to what extent Ukraine could be confident in a peace deal, confident in Western or Russian "guarantees" about it, as at another point it was argued that Putin "could not be trusted" and that was why Zelensky was reasonable in repudiating any peace agreement (and my point was that a lack of 100% certainty is not a basis in itself to reject a peace deal, but must be weighed against the diplomatic, economic and military leverage of the parties involved that would incentivize them to stick to the deal; maybe we can't "trust Putin" but there's plenty of reasons he'd want to keep peace in Ukraine if it was achieved and keep all the gas flowing, and, in any case one needs to military leverage to actually win a war to justify repudiating negotiations).

Certainly Russia would be aiming to neuter Ukraine defensive capabilities as much as possible in negotiations. The reason to accept that is that you cannot win a war with said defensive capabilities.

What is also true is that Russia is the stronger party to the conflict, so can more easily play "hardball" and insist on more concessions from Ukraine than Ukraine could insist on from Russia. The basis Ukraine could negotiate retaining more, rather than less, of a conventional deterrent would be mostly that continued fighting is costly and risky for Russia, even if it has a large advantage, and also the gas issue.

My main point on these topics is not that "I know" what exactly Russia was offering at one points and to what extent, if any, Ukraine could negotiate down the Russian demands.

My point is that Ukraine's leverage was far higher at the start (both before and immediately following the invasion) than it is now, and so should have been trying to negotiate a settlement based on that leverage. Of course, even if one has the leverage to compel "rational parties" to accept a deal, there's no guarantee that would happen.

The only actual evidence of derailment of the negotiations is the assassination (by Ukraine intelligence) of a representative in the negotiation.

The person that makes public statements that render any further negotiations exceedingly difficult is Zelensky in promising to reconquer all of Ukraine, including Crimea, refusing to negotiate until Russia already leaves Ukraine, refusing to negotiate until Putin is removed from office by the West and similar claims that are embarrassing to walk back to resume peace negotiations with Putin on the basis of, at minimum, Russia keeping Crimea.

The party that removes a large part of Ukraine's leverage to end the war is the party that blew up Nord Stream 2. Maybe this was good for US gas interests, but this was definitely not good for Ukraine and any Ukrainians as it significantly reduces the incentive (and therefore potential concessions) that Russia would be willing to make.

Second, the seriousness of Russia's desires for a merely "independent Donbass" is belied by the fact that they officially annexed those regions, and southern Ukraine not long after. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The more the war goes on, the more Russia needs to "show for it".

That Russia annexes the regions after several failed negotiations where Russia was offering not-to-annex-the-regions (it wasn't even a point of discussion that the other 2 regions would be needing independence too, just the 2 Donbas separatist regions).

However, more importantly the Nord stream bombing happened on 26 September 2022, and Russia declared annexation of the territories on 30 September 2022.

In other words, a significant part of Ukraine's leverage in negotiating some form of return of the territories is blown up, and immediately after that Russia annexes those territories.

The credibility of Russia in a deal predicated on "giving up Ukraine's means of self defense," strains credulity considering how they had just vociferously denied that they were going to invade Ukraine, calling the build up for the invasion "military exercises." I recall Lavrov declaring how the West would be "embarrassed" by the fact that all the Russian soldiers would simply return to their barracks, and blamed the US in particular for "building up hysteria" about a possible invasion. That was, in retrospect, obviously just patent lies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is pretty normal demand in these sorts of conflicts. A larger state is threatened by another large state using a smaller adjacent state as a proxy, so an acceptable compromise is that the smaller adjacent state accepts neutrality and few means of conventional deterrence.

The logic of such deals is that the larger state can destroy the smaller state, so it's basically play nice of be destroyed. We can debate the morality of such demands in some absolute moral framework, but it is pretty usual political events in the real world and has happened many times before without anyone going around and crying how "unreasonable it is".

Now, to what extent Ukraine could negotiate retaining a neutral but conventional deterrent I don't know. Maybe Russians would have accepted essentially retaining the relative force parity that existed at the time, so that Ukraine would be no worse off in a future war.

However, the logic of "fighting now rather than later" anyways implies some means to win the war now. If there's no means to win the war, then a deal that postpones conflict to later is still better to take. Maybe favourable events transpire during the delay.

As for the second point, it's also pretty normal to downplay a surprise invasion. Not everyone follows the Ukrainian playbook and makes movie trailers advertising the planned offensive.

I think you missed the part where Russia annexed significant parts of Ukraine. But I guess the west forced them to do that. — Echarmion

Of course. And if it brought up, the "peace-party" immediately tells us that Crimea has been part of Russia, only given away as a birthday present inside the Soviet Union. Or then, conveniently, any earlier Russian demands for Crimea are forgotten and the annexation is introduced only as a response to revolution, sorry, US "coup". :roll: :snicker:

You yourself posted the Reuters report. It said Russia would "halt military operations".

That is what you have offered regarding the russian proposal. Noone doubts the ukrainian proposal involves Russia retreating. — Echarmion

First, you completely ignore that obviously Russia's offer before the invasion even took place would require no withdrawal.

Had Ukraine accepted neutrality before the war, the war may not have happened, and Russia may not have seen enough sufficient cause to invade given the main point of contention was resolved.

Did refusing neutrality help Ukraine?

No. Ukraine has no allies that sent soldiers to its aid because Ukraine is already de facto neutral.

As for the Reuters article clearly states the terms "change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states".

In other words, Donetsk and Lugansk would not be annexed by Russia and there's no mention of the other regions Russia occupied in the demands as Russia would be giving them back in such a deal.

But if this was bad faith, and only a reasonable offer if there wasn't some sneaky "cease fire in place", the correct move for Ukraine would be to make a counter offer that explicitly clarifies those points. Which Ukraine never does.

Ukraine negotiates based on Russian demands, which at some points are "realistic" even according to Zelensky, but then walks away from negotiations (after Boris Johnson flies to Ukraine to convince Zelensky to not make peace).

Ukraine does not make any counter-proposal of their own that is remotely realistic.

Had Ukraine done that, clarified the points you are now equivocating on, and the Russia clearly refused such a peace deal; ok, the Russian offer was in bad faith, Russia intends to continue the war until all its demands are met without compromise, and Ukraine is in the difficult position of needing to either find some way to "win", accepting Russia's demands no matter how painful, or then losing the war and then accepting Russias demands.

You seem to think that if you "don't like terms" that's reason enough to reject them. That is not how war works.

An offer which we also do not know. — Echarmion

We do know the Russian demands before the war. The main one was Ukrainian neutrality.

Prior to invasion, Russia sought legally binding guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. — Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Of course, we don't have final drafts of such deals because there is no serious negotiation.

Again, just stating whatever fact seems reasonable.

Obviously there were chances to negotiate peace at various times leading up to and during the conflict, starting with the Minsk accords, the main point of contention being NATO, and Ukraine consistently chooses to push for joining NATO rather than entertain accepting neutrality.

The war happens. If Ukraine can't win, and instead loses and significant amount of Ukrainians are killed, Ukraine depopulated through people fleeing the conflict, and the economy destroyed and furthermore far more of the coveted territory is lost in battle, clearly those opportunities for peace were preferable, and trying to join NATO did not help Ukraine one bit (just a provocation based on some foolish principle of "having the right to ask to join a club that doesn't want you" without any benefit whatsoever).

Halting your military operations is a ceasefire. — Echarmion

Which is the first step in any sort of peace plan.

But again, I've asked several times, even if the Russians were only offering a ceasefire as you claim without evidence, what's the point of refusing that offer if you can't win the war?

What does it matter if Russian terms were even worse for Ukraine than what seemed to me, everyone on the forum, and the mainstream Western media, if your interpretation is correct ... but Ukraine loses anyways?

Why would I need to do that? It's your claim not mine. — Echarmion

Because demanding sources of points that you don't honestly disbelieve is just bad faith.

Makes you look purposefully stupid, which is much wore than being actually stupid (the latter not being a moral blemish if you can't help it). So which one is it?

This is not a claim I'm making. I'm saying what you quoted describes a ceasefire in place. — Echarmion

It does not describe a cease fire in place if it goes onto list conditions such as independence for the Donbas, clearly the ceasefire is a first step of resolving the whole conflict. That is common sense interpretation of the list of demands.

But again, if the demands "actually mean" just a ceasefire in place, why is it better to lose the war at massive cost to Ukraine?

Not under current international law. — Echarmion

The key syllables are "national" in "international law". A law created by nation states in their own interest: surprise, surprise, doesn't condone separatism.

However, plenty of existing states exist due to separating from the states they were formerly apart of, so to say separatism is immoral is to claim a significant amount of existing states, including the US, is immoral and should render their territory back to their formal owners.

As you say, separatism is a "thorny" issue.

That's not how any of this works. — Echarmion

That's exactly how it works. "Ukraine" as some sort of "entity", whatever you want to categories it, claims the right to self determination (join NATO, resist Russian invasion) and so on, and furthermore claims the right to remove the right of self determination (freedom of movement) from a large number of its citizens in order to be able to coerce them (including nabbing them off the street) to the front line to defend the national right ... oh and all that without elections anymore as it's common sense that the "freedom side" suspends elections in a war.

That's exactly how it works: imprisonment within Ukrainian territory and forced conscription to be forced into military service (i.e. taking away people's right to self determination for themselves) in the name of self determination for the "glorious nation".

Yes. The organic separatist movements in the Donbas were very localised and nothing really got off the ground until mercenaries arrived from Crimea. Even then the separatists quickly fizzled out in most areas apart from a few strongholds - notably Donetsk city. — Echarmion

You criticize me for not providing further citations to prove beyond any possible equivocation you can bring up about a minor point I don't care much about (if Ukraine can't win, then they should basically accept anything that's on offer whatever it is, so ceasefire in place is perfectly reasonable as well compared to losing a war), but on this critical issue for yourself to support your case that Ukraine has just cause (without citation or argument of any kind when you state it the first time ... and the second time) you offer zero citations or evidence or even plausible arguments.

I have no doubt it seems that way to you, but it is not legal. You cannot declare yourself a separatist and ask your neighbour to invade. It should be obvious why. — Echarmion

Separatism is based on extra-legal moral principles, obviously not legal principles of the country you're currently apart of.

You totally can declare yourself separatists and ask your neighbour to invade.

For example, if the United States of America declared itself separatists and then asked the French for help, and lets say the French even send soldiers to help and not just material, would that make the American Revolution illegitimate in your framework?

Likewise, is every separatists movement the CIA supported over the years unequivocally illegitimate because of the mere presence of foreign assistance?

Obviously if you have just case you will seek to convince others that you have just cause and you are a worthwhile cause to assist, being just.

Whether a separatist movement actually is just cause, or any armed conflict, depends on the circumstances.

Certainly the separatists have good arguments, including language and cultural repression and an illegal coup in the capital, so I do not see how it is trivial to state Ukraine shelling the separatists civilians is "insignificant". At minimum you'd need to do a lot of work to prove that the separatists had no "legitimacy". They certainly fight a losing battle against Ukrainian forces until the Russians assist covertly and stabilize the front, but that has nothing to to with popular support within the separatist territory, just pointing out the obvious that they are a smaller force than the rest of Ukraine.

However, we seem to agree that if the separatists have just cause then Ukraine does not have just cause, and Russia has therefore just cause in assisting the separatists.

That might be an interesting question in the abstract but it is not what happened. Most of the unrest in Donbas coincided not with the Euromaidan but with the seizure of Crimea. It was also short lived until Igor Girkin, a Moscow born russian, started taking over cities with a band of mercenaries. — Echarmion

Again, zero sources, which immediately following demanding sources for me to 100% clarify the sources I already cited, is extreme bad faith.

If you don't want to bring your own sources to the table, then it's complete idiocy to demand others provide sources (on-top of the sources they've already provided).

And look how well that turned out. — Echarmion

NATO bombed everything that could potentially support a plane, no matter how indirectly, and were perfectly content to see the country descend into total chaos and a breeding ground for exporting jihadism to the region.

But if you are conceding that NATO had just-cause in bombing Libya because civilians "might" get shelled, then certainly it follows Russia has just cause in invading Ukraine due to shelling of civilians in the Donbas ... which if the separatists did not have popular support why would you want to shell civilians that are actually on your side but de facto being held captive by Russian mercenaries?

Ah yes more excellent advice from boethius. Just retreat. What's the worst that can happen? — Echarmion

Yes, either fight with confidence you can win or lose and capitulate anyways, so best to try to negotiate while you still have forces and leverage. The only exceptions are extreme circumstances which do not exist in the current conflict.

Forcing men into conscription and to the front lines to be killed in a losing battle is both immoral and terrible national policy anyways.

This is an insipid and pointless sideshow.

You have claimed Russia offered to retreat to the February 2022 starting points in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. It's upon you to provide evidence of this, which so far you haven't done.

I ultimately don't care one way or the other whether you believe diplomatic negotiations happen in public. — Echarmion

Again, the offer made before the war obviously required no retreat as the invasion hadn't happened yet.

Now, "everyone" at the time in Western media, and also on this forum, discussed under the assumption that Russia would accept peace (that would include withdrawal) with some for of the three main points they kept repeating were critical to them: recognition of Crimea, Ukrainian neutrality, and some status change in the Donbas, where considered the key elements (Ukraine would need to accept) to arrive at a peace.

Significant ink was dedicated to analyzing this sort of "off ramp" for Putin, and especially the Western media which assumed the war was a "disaster" and going terrible for Russia, and did not even consider the idea Putin would not take an "off-ramp" if provided one. The debate in the Western media mostly focused on the idea of any peace whatsoever being a "win" for Putin or not (or then an unfortunate compromise for the sake of Ukraine).

However, I do not dismiss the possibility that once Russia conquered the land bridge to Crimea it never had any intention of giving it back. I seriously doubt this but it's possible. If you want believe the peace deals that are reported by various parties as getting "close" and Zelensky himself saying terms seemed more realistic, was all either misinterpretation or then Russian bad faith, there's no way to completely prove otherwise.

But again, how is a cease fire in place at the time not preferable to losing the war?

So if all this discussion is just to come to the fact that Ukraine's refusing neutrality before the war, and refusing Russian demands after the war broke out, is only reasonable (certainly at least in hindsight) if Ukraine can ultimately "win" (at least on the glorious nationalistic territorial dimension).

Then sure, the "war isn't over" and we can return to analyzing the military situation, and everything else depends on that.

Of course. And if it brought up, the "peace-party" immediately tells us that Crimea has been part of Russia, only given away by birthday present inside the Soviet Union. Or then, conveniently, any earlier Russian demands for Crimea are forgotten and the annexation is introduced only as a response to revolution, sorry, "coup" — ssu

Literally no one here has said that.

Everyone here in favour of peace (some compromise that ends the war) has had no problem accepting Russia annexed Crimea due to their military base there coming under threat with an illegal change of government in Kiev.

You seem to be mocking your own point of view by pointing to the fact that one person's revolution is another person's coup.

Literally no one here has said that. — boethius

This is a thread of 532 pages, so yes, that was said. And I won't bother to find the direct quote as you continue yourself:

Everyone here in favour of peace (some compromise that ends the war) has had no problem accepting Russia annexed Crimea due to their military base there coming under threat with an illegal change of government in Kiev. — boethius

:grin:

Rest my case, tovarich @boethius.

First, you completely ignore that obviously Russia's offer before the invasion even took place would require no withdrawal.

Had Ukraine accepted neutrality before the war, the war may not have happened, and Russia may not have seen enough sufficient cause to invade given the main point of contention was resolved. — boethius

And again it's an entirely unsubstantiated claim that russia would have accepted a simple pledge of neutrality. Various Ukrainian governments have expressed their willingness to accept neutrality in principle.

In other words, Donetsk and Lugansk would not be annexed by Russia and there's no mention of the other regions Russia occupied in the demands as Russia would be giving them back in such a deal. — boethius

This does not follow. Russia had already decided at that point to annex the "independent" republics, there was a rather humourous episode where a Russian official apparently switched their scripts and argued in favour of a request (as of then nonexistent) to join the RF before the republics had even been recognised by Russia.

Nor would the deal in any way obligate Russia to not demand further territory in subsequent peace negotiations. All they offered here was to halt their operations.

the correct move for Ukraine would be to make a counter offer that explicitly clarifies those points. Which Ukraine never does — boethius

You yourself quoted the 15 point plan that was the Ukrainian counteroffer.

after Boris Johnson flies to Ukraine to convince Zelensky to not make peace). — boethius

Baseless speculation.

Had Ukraine done that, clarified the points you are now equivocating on, and the Russia clearly refused such a peace deal; ok — boethius

Russia has repeatedly restated their goals to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine. Why are you not accepting their own words?

Obviously there were chances to negotiate peace at various times leading up to and during the conflict, starting with the Minsk accords, the main point of contention being NATO, and Ukraine consistently chooses to push for joining NATO rather than entertain accepting neutrality.

The war happens. If Ukraine can't win, and instead loses and significant amount of Ukrainians are killed, Ukraine depopulated through people fleeing the conflict, and the economy destroyed and furthermore far more of the coveted territory is lost in battle, clearly those opportunities for peace were preferable, and trying to join NATO did not help Ukraine one bit (just a provocation based on some foolish principle of "having the right to ask to join a club that doesn't want you" without any benefit whatsoever). — boethius

You're welcome to your opinions, but they seem far removed from reality to me.

What does it matter if Russian terms were even worse for Ukraine than what seemed to me, everyone on the forum, and the mainstream Western media, if your interpretation is correct ... but Ukraine loses anyways? — boethius

Stop lying through your teeth.

Because demanding sources of points that you don't honestly disbelieve is just bad faith. — boethius

My main interest is pointing out obvious falsehoods and inconsistencies for the benefit of others. It's quite clear you will not budge one inch whatever I say.

That's exactly how it works: imprisonment within Ukrainian territory and forced conscription to be forced into military service (i.e. taking away people's right to self determination for themselves) in the name of self determination for the "glorious nation". — boethius

The right to self determination doesn't apply to individuals and is generally fulfilled so long as there is some effective form of representation for the people, i.e. the ethnic or cultural group (as a whole) in question

you offer zero citations or evidence or even plausible arguments. — boethius

Well since we haven't talked about it before, it wasn't necessary. Perhaps you'd just have agreed. But here is the overview of the timeline from Wikipedia . Anything specific you take issue with?

Separatism is based on extra-legal moral principles, — boethius

I have zero interest in discussing morality with you, so I'll stick to the international law.

Again, zero sources, which immediately following demanding sources for me to 100% clarify the sources I already cited, is extreme bad faith.

If you don't want to bring your own sources to the table, then it's complete idiocy to demand others provide sources (on-top of the sources they've already provided). — boethius

Sourcing things isn't some kind of weird dick measuring contest. I'm asking you for sources for specific claims, because those claims are false as far as I can see.

What exactly is it you take issue with? I can provide sources for the movements of Igor Girkin if you want.

This is a thread of 532 pages, so yes, that was said. And I won't bother to find the direct quote as you continue yourself: — ssu

Which we've both been apart of since essentially the beginning.

The "peace party", as you accurately describe us who have been promoting a negotiated settlement to the conflict and providing both justification for doing so (such as Ukraine having no viable military path to victory) and analysis of potential compromises and why they would be preferable to continued warfare as well as arguing against the "war party" position of using Ukraine as a proxy to harm Russia with little or no concern for Ukrainian welfare, have provided the context that indeed Crimea was part of Russia for a long time and there was certainly strong motivation to want it back.

None of us presented the historical grievance as justification for the annexing Crimea, and I'm sure you know the positions that were elaborated on these various points as you aren't a straight-up denialist of facts and nuance.

Rest my case, tovarich boethius. — ssu

This is the exact opposite of your case of the "peace party" using historical grievance as justification for the annexation of Crimea.

Rather it is the obvious reality: Russia annexed Crimea to secure their military and navel base there, which was a fairly easy task considering they had a massive military and navel base already there.

Whether it was justified or not, Russia is obviously not going to give it back to Ukraine, although, notably, the Wikipedia article on the peace negotiations mentions:

On 14 June 2023, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko claimed, in an interview with Russia-1, that Ukrainian and Russian delegations also discussed the possibility of "some sort of a lease" of Crimea during the March 2022 negotiations — Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Which if you're "party" is correct that the invasion was a disaster for Russia and they expected total capitulation and occupation of all of Ukraine in about 3 days, then perhaps Putin really was desperate for some "off ramp" and even willing to return sovereignty of Crimea to Ukraine in exchange for leasing Crimea, which would have resolved the whole "nations don't conquer new territory anymore!! (only the US can go around building bases where it wants!!!)" complaints from the West.

Maybe the offer was genuine, maybe it was some Russian ruse, but my main point on the negotiations is that the start of the war was when Ukraine had maximum leverage and should have pushed for maximum concessions. "Leasing Crimea" to Russia would certainly be the maximum concession Russia would ever make on the issue and the best Ukraine could ever negotiate if military conquest of Crimea is indeed not feasible as it appears to me since then.

But it's interesting to note how the myth of "Russian incompetence" can so easily co-exist with the myth of Russian intransigence and only pretending to negotiate and offering terms that only appeared to people are fairly reasonable (but "actually" there's no evidence for what we believed here and what Western media likewise believed).

But if you are conceding that NATO had just-cause in bombing Libya because civilians "might" get shelled, then certainly it follows Russia has just cause in invading Ukraine due to shelling of civilians in the Donbas .. — boethius

I don't think NATO had just cause in bombing Syria, and I think humanitarian interventions in general are highly questionable.

Now, "everyone" at the time in Western media, and also on this forum, discussed under the assumption that Russia would accept peace (that would include withdrawal) with some for of the three main points they kept repeating were critical to them: recognition of Crimea, Ukrainian neutrality, and some status change in the Donbas, where considered the key elements (Ukraine would need to accept) to arrive at a peace. — boethius

This just seems a bizzare and obviously false claim. I can remember no-one making such assumptions.

If you want believe the peace deals that are reported by various parties as getting "close" and Zelensky himself saying terms seemed more realistic, was all either misinterpretation or then Russian bad faith, there's no way to completely prove otherwise. — boethius

This is a massive distortion, as negotiations hadn't ever reached a ceasefire, and all the talk about getting close and being more realistic obviously is in the context of stopping the fighting, not finding some overarching solution to the entire conflict.

But again, how is a cease fire in place at the time not preferable to losing the war? — boethius

We'll know when either side has lost. For now Ukraine holds a good deal more territory than it did at the time.

So if all this discussion is just to come to the fact that Ukraine's refusing neutrality before the war, and refusing Russian demands after the war broke out, is only reasonable (certainly at least in hindsight) if Ukraine can ultimately "win" (at least on the glorious nationalistic territorial dimension). — boethius

If it was so easy to make peace, why did it happen? Your argument is that either Zelensky is a stupid crazy person or he's being controlled by the west. Well in that case I can just argue Putin is a stupid crazy person and would attack anyways.

If we assume both leaders are reasonable and somewhat informed about the situation the only conclusion is that Russian and Ukrainian interests were fundamentally irreconcilable. And this happens to be exactly what the evidence suggests, from the rhetoric of demilitarise and denazify to the annexation of Ukrainian territories before they're even under russian control.

And again it's an entirely unsubstantiated claim that russia would have accepted a simple pledge of neutrality. Various Ukrainian governments have expressed their willingness to accept neutrality in principle. — Echarmion

You don't substantiate any of your claims, just throw it out there that it's "relatively easy" to demonstrate Ukraine has just cause ... but then don't bother to do this easy work.

Worse, you're just inventing straw man positions for what I say.

For the benefit of other's I'll point out your clearly purposeful mistakes in comprehension and re-explain the actual point.

I do not claim that if Ukraine committed to neutrality we know Russia would not have invaded.

My claim is that committing to neutrality would have cost Ukraine nothing. Ukraine does not have any formal allies it is already formally neutral. Notice how no other uniformed troops of any other country entered Ukraine. Declaring neutrality when one does not have allies, is only making de jure an existing de facto state of affairs. Ukraine has "friends" and "partners" which neutrality does not exclude. Receiving arms from third party is does not compromise formal neutrality; neutral countries can still receive arms.

Therefore, declaring neutrality changes nothing and I say may prevent the war because it removes the principle Russian motivation of the war.

Now, if you want to argue Russia would have invaded anyways, that's possible, but Ukraine would have lost nothing form committing to neutrality and would be in a far better position diplomatically. Russia would have a far more difficult time justifying their actions to other nations (China, India, Africa, South America) had Ukraine committed to neutrality, sympathy would be even higher for Ukraine and Russia would look far more belligerent than it currently does.

For, simply because the West is happy to just take it for granted that Russia-bad-Ukraine-good, a position requiring zero of your sought after "substantiation", doesn't mean the rest of the world has equally little concern. Especially the large countries (China and India) have zero sympathy for small countries that make trouble for big countries, so had Ukraine actually declared neutrality then things may have turned out very different diplomatically (either far more pressure on Russia or India actually participating in sanctions).

We can't know, but the main point is it would have cost Ukraine nothing to commit to neutrality and would have had only positive benefits.

The only reason for a country without any formal allies to repudiate neutrality would be to then actually join an alliance to have some deterrence and protection.

This does not follow. Russia had already decided at that point to annex the "independent" republics, there was a rather humourous episode where a Russian official apparently switched their scripts and argued in favour of a request (as of then nonexistent) to join the RF before the republics had even been recognised by Russia.

Nor would the deal in any way obligate Russia to not demand further territory in subsequent peace negotiations. All they offered here was to halt their operations. — Echarmion

Again, several different parties, including Zelensky himself, described peace talks at various moments as "realistic" in Zelensky's words or close to successful.

Clearly Russia was at least presenting reasonable positions that could form a basis for peace. If you want to argue they were only "pretending to negotiate" as others (who weren't there) have claimed; sure, that's possible.

My main criticism of Zelensky is walking away from peace negotiations entirely, making public ultimatums making public declarations that would be humiliating to walk back, and then committing to further warfare without any realistic military means to achieve military aims.

As I've stated, a cease fire in place is anyways better than continuing to fight a war that you then lose. Retaining your forces is also preserving your leverage in order to negotiate withdrawal, which, again, you is better to accept won't happen then to embark on a losing war.

Baseless speculation. — Echarmion

Might be speculative to some degree what exactly Boris Johnson said to Zelensky, but it is not baseless that he encourages Zelensky to walk away from negotiations and fully commit to "liberating" all of Ukraine. Several reports by credible journalists describe Boris' purpose as to convince Zelensky to fight and not negotiate. But believe what you want to believe; if you want to believe Boris was there just for fun, or then to convince Zelensky to negotiate peace but, alas, failed, feel free to believe that.

Stop lying through your teeth. — Echarmion

What lie?

You're accusing me of lying in a statement is a question. My question is:

What does it matter if Russian terms were even worse for Ukraine than what seemed to me, everyone on the forum, and the mainstream Western media, if your interpretation is correct ... but Ukraine loses anyways? — boethius

Which is a question. How can a question be a lie?

I'm asking you why would it matter what the Russian terms were if Ukraine goes onto lose the war? Any terms at the time, such as cease fire in place, would be far superior to losing the war.

Now, if you want to argue Ukraine will win the war or then fight to a superior negotiating position than it had at the beginning of the war, we can debate that. However, what prompted all this discussion about the Russian terms is that you explicitly agreed that Ukraine had more leverage at the start of the war than it does now, so should have pushed for a peace deal when it had maximum leverage (which I'd argue was before the war even occurred; but once it did Ukraine still had the most leverage in the first phase than it does since or now).

Which, if you can read, I use the word "if".

If your point is that "if" Ukraine win's that will prove Zelensky a military genius and Glory to Ukraine!

Go ahead, make that clear and we can debate instead Ukraine's military prospects.

You yourself quoted the 15 point plan that was the Ukrainian counteroffer. — Echarmion

Are you going to substantiate that? The wikipedia article simply describes the talks at that time as being based on 15 points, not some sort of draft treaty presented by Ukraine.

But even so, let's say Ukraine did have a reasonable offer at one point, clearly they repudiate their own offer when the walk away from negotiations and then make a public ultimatum (for example they'd only talk peace on the condition of Russia withdrawing all forces from Ukraine including Crimea) that are clearly not reasonable conditions for peace talks.

You're welcome to your opinions, but they seem far removed from reality to me. — Echarmion

These opinions are common sense.

Clearly there were chances to negotiate peace.

Clearly if Ukraine loses the war then it would have been better to have negotiated peace terms before said losing war, and, indeed, would have been better to just accept any Russian demands, no matter how "unreasonable" compared to losing the war.

If you want to argue Ukraine will win the war and therefore not only continuously declaring their intention to join NATO but putting it in their constitution was the right move, cause they are winners on the battlefield, feel free to argue Ukraine is going to win the war.

My main interest is pointing out obvious falsehoods and inconsistencies for the benefit of others. It's quite clear you will not budge one inch whatever I say. — Echarmion

The right to self determination doesn't apply to individuals and is generally fulfilled so long as there is some effective form of representation for the people, i.e. the ethnic or cultural group (as a whole) in question — Echarmion

WTF are you talking about?

Obviously the right to self determination also applies to individuals: freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of opinion, freedom to choose career or not a career, and pretty much all the freedoms express the freedom of self-determination of individuals.

Indeed, even when it comes to conscription for war, the Western legal tradition has conscientious objection in the name of self-determination.

Of course, all freedoms are limited by a whole bunch of things, but the "freedom" and "liberty" is another word for self-determination, that individuals can (as far as is practical and respecting of the rights of others) choose their own destiny.

In any case, your theory that self-determination is "generally fulfilled" by group decisions is the exact opposite of the concept of freedom and self-determination in the Western legal tradition. To what extent, if any, it's justifiable to remove an individuals right to self-determination by, for example, forcing them to fight in a war is one more of those "thorny" issues of yours.

I have never come across a theory that presents the idea that removing an individuals right to self-determination is justified because it's anyways "generally fulfilled" by an ethnic or cultural group ... which is not even a legal argument that "the law" can take away your right to self-determination because Zelensky needs you to fight the Russians, but has even more problems than that.

However, please elaborate if you have this ethnocultural self-determination general fulfillment theory worked out.

Well since we haven't talked about it before, it wasn't necessary. Perhaps you'd just have agreed. But here is the overview of the timeline from Wikipedia . Anything specific you take issue with? — Echarmion

I have zero interest in discussing morality with you, so I'll stick to the international law. — Echarmion

Ok, well the way international law works is that the Russian action are de facto legal if there's no security council resolution that says otherwise; that's how international law is setup.

The security council is the authoritative body that has the power to interpret how international law applies to a given situation, and before and until that happens all legal arguments about the situation are merely legal briefs and opinions and are not legal facts.

What the Russians are doing in Ukraine is perfectly legal under international law until there is a security council resolution that says otherwise.

If you want to argue that's unfair because Russia can veto any security council resolution: Welcome to international law! You should get together with the Palestinians and voice your extra-legal grievances about how the law works.

Perhaps join Zelensky himself in demanding Russia be removed from the security council ... which, you guessed it, would require Russia's approval to be legally possible under international law.

If you don't care about extra-legal arguments, that certainly can make claims to legitimate interpretations of international law (those legal briefs and opinions mentioned above) then there's nothing to say the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal as there is no security council resolution that states that, and international law was setup with exactly this in mind.

Sourcing things isn't some kind of weird dick measuring contest. I'm asking you for sources for specific claims, because those claims are false as far as I can see.

What exactly is it you take issue with? I can provide sources for the movements of Igor Girkin if you want. — Echarmion

You've thrown out all sorts of claims without any sources at all.

In your dick measuring contest analogy your dick literally measures zero inches.

So yes please, please source the Igor Girkin movement to support your claim that there is and never was any popular support for the separatists within the separatists territory.

In my own reading up on Girkin I don't see where it's stated that he conquered the Donbas with a band of Russian mercenaries and no effective popular support at all.

I do, however, see that if what you claim is true, and Girkin is the key to everything, then Ukraine could have easily won this conflict all the way back in 2014:

On the night of 4–5 July 2014, during a large-scale offensive by the Ukrainian military, following the end of a 10-day ceasefire on 30 June, Girkin led the Sloviansk People's Militia to an orderly retreat out of Ukrainian encirclement and made it to Donetsk, which they started fortifying on 7 July.[79] Sloviansk was then captured by Ukrainian forces, thus ending the separatist occupation of the city which had started on 6 April.[80] According to Girkin, 80-90 percent of his men had escaped from Sloviansk.[81]

The ultimately successful withdrawal of a considerable force of separatists from the besieged Sloviansk to the large industrial center of Donetsk caused some backlash in Ukraine against the army leadership. General Mykhailo Zabrodskyi, then the commander of the besieging army who was criticized for having allowed Girkin's columns to move out of the city unopposed (and as of 2023 the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces), said in 2020 that Girkin's successful escape had longtime consequences for the war, unfavorable for Ukraine — Igor Girkin - Wikipedia

So, if what you say is true, then we can safely conclude that Ukrainian military is totally incompetent and had the chance to simply win all the Donbas territory back in 2014 but let the key man, and his band of mercenaries, escape.

I don't think NATO had just cause in bombing Syria, and I think humanitarian interventions in general are highly questionable. — Echarmion

Well then we agree there.

And certainly strengthens your position if you also condemn "when NATO does it".

This just seems a bizzare and obviously false claim. I can remember no-one making such assumptions. — Echarmion

Really?? Bizarre??

Took me literally five seconds to find:

An Off-Ramp for Putin Is Repugnant But Necessary

Russia’s defeats on the battlefield create an opening to bring the war to a close without risking catastrophe. — Bloomberg, September 22, 2022

This was the conversation in the Western media at the time. Russia was experiencing defeats and therefore could be pressured into a peace favourable to Ukraine ... though of course needing some compromise so that Russia accepts.

The article literally starts with the obvious reason to seek a peace:

From the outset of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the crucial question hasn’t changed: Can Vladimir Putin be defeated at an acceptable cost? Despite all we now know about Russia’s military incompetence and the courage and skill of Ukraine’s forces, the answer is still uncertain. — Bloomberg, September 22, 2022

This was the discussion at the time, and given the "Russia’s military incompetence and the courage and skill of Ukraine’s forces" there wasn't much debate about whether Putin would accept a reasonable offramp. The questions of this debate was what offramp would still be adequate punishment for Putin and whether to offer an offramp at all given "the courage and skill of Ukraine’s forces" could simply deliver glorious victory instead of compromise.

We'll know when either side has lost. For now Ukraine holds a good deal more territory than it did at the time. — Echarmion

This debatable, considering Russia did not really occupy any major urban centres in the North.

However, if you want to support general Miley's view that after the battles of Kherson and Kharkiv that Ukraine had achieved all that was militarily practical to achieve and should negotiate.

I'd agree with that too.

However, it can be debated whether Ukraine increased or decreased their negotiation leverage with those battles; it depends on the losses. If Ukraine essentially expended their offensive capabilities then easily their negotiation position decreased rather than increased; they did regain territory but made it more difficult to negotiate withdrawals from further territory and other concessions.

But I'd agree this was the last reasonable military actions by Ukraine.

If it was so easy to make peace, why did it happen? Your argument is that either Zelensky is a stupid crazy person or he's being controlled by the west. Well in that case I can just argue Putin is a stupid crazy person and would attack anyways.

If we assume both leaders are reasonable and somewhat informed about the situation the only conclusion is that Russian and Ukrainian interests were fundamentally unreconcilable. And this happens to be exactly what the evidence suggests, from the rhetoric of demilitarise and denazify to the annexation of Ukrainian territories before they're even considered. — Echarmion

Zelensky definitely is a stupid crazy person who did not understand that a small force can have temporary success against a larger force, and more importantly it's the potential to inflict damage (even if you will still lose) that is the main leverage of a smaller force, and this leverage is only useful before and not after expending said force.

Except for some opportune manoeuvre victories at the start of a war, further fighting decreases, rather than increases, the leverage of the smaller force while also making the larger force "need more" to show for the military effort: creating a dynamic that locks in continued pointless war of attrition (that the smaller force is nearly guaranteed to lose; a terrible dynamic as the more the larger force needs to justify the war effort, the less concessions will be on the table and the less the smaller force will be able to get to justify their own war effort).

Zelensky is also a stupid crazy person because he does not push NATO into committing better weapons in exchange for repudiating negotiations (which was clearly the deal).

Zelensky does not understand that offensive actions will be impossible (as I explained at length at the time) without armour and air power, two obvious points that Zelensky and his generals have understood far too long into the conflict.

Had Zelensky understood this sooner, he would have seen that NATO was not in fact offering "what it takes" and so either would have pressed for heavy armour in order to commit to reconquer the occupied territories, or then would have made peace with the Russians.

As I discussed in detail at the time, it was likely very possible for Ukraine to at least cut the land-bridge in the first phase of the war if they received more advanced weapons for offensive maneuvers. The "ok, ok, you can have some" sequence of weapons systems was clearly "calibrated" (to use RAND's language) to ensure Ukraine not make any significant gainse that may "provoke" the Russians too much by winning.

I do not claim that if Ukraine committed to neutrality we know Russia would not have invaded.

My claim is that committing to neutrality would have cost Ukraine nothing. — boethius

But this is contradictory, because the cost is right there - if Ukraine is neutral it has much less protection against any future aggression. That is unless you think that for Russia, "neutrality" would mean simply that Ukraine is not officially in NATO but can otherwise get as much western military support as it wants.

Receiving arms from third party is does not compromise formal neutrality; neutral countries can still receive arms. — boethius

And you think that somehow this is an acceptable arrangement for Russia, that Russia would start a war over nothing but a formality?

My main criticism of Zelensky is walking away from peace negotiations entirely, making public ultimatums making public declarations that would be humiliating to walk back, and then committing to further warfare without any realistic military means to achieve military aims. — boethius

Neither side has definetly ruled out negotiations, and if you criticize Zelensky you'd also have to criticize Russia for reiterating maximalists goals.

I'm asking you why would it matter what the Russian terms were if Ukraine goes onto lose the war? Any terms at the time, such as cease fire in place, would be far superior to losing the war. — boethius

It matters because a lot of different scenarios can be called a loss, but that doesn't mean they're all the same. If Ukraine eventually looses some territory that's not remotely the same as, for example, Ukraine being split in two and ceasing to exist as a political entity.

Are you going to substantiate that? The wikipedia article simply describes the talks at that time as being based on 15 points, not some sort of draft treaty presented by Ukraine. — boethius

Neither party presented a draft treaty.

WTF are you talking about? — boethius

Im talking about the right to self-determination as understood in internation al law.

This one. Not an abstract notion of freedom.

Ok, well the way international law works is that the Russian action are de facto legal if there's no security council resolution that says otherwise; that's how international law is setup.

The security council is the authoritative body that has the power to interpret how international law applies to a given situation, and before and until that happens all legal arguments about the situation are merely legal briefs and opinions and are not legal facts.

What the Russians are doing in Ukraine is perfectly legal under international law until there is a security council resolution that says otherwise. — boethius

That's all quite wrong.

The UN-Charta rules out violence in international relations generally, in Art 2 section 3 and 4. The security council has some specific and far reaching powers (theoretically at least), but it is not the authoritative body on how to interpret international law. Nor does it need to declare something an attack in order for it to be one, as among other things Art. 51 of the UN-Charta makes clear. And of course there is an entire body of international law part from the UNC.

So yes please, please source the Igor Girkin movement to support your claim that there is and never was any popular support for the separatists within the separatists territory. — boethius

That is not my claim, nor does your demand make any sense in context.

But anyways here is Igor Girkin telling us about his role in the invasion of Crimea, so Girkin is in Crimea from February 21.

On April 12, the Slovianks Police HQ is taken, apparently by a well organised "independent group". Later interviews from Girkin make clear that he was the leader of that independent group 1, 2, 3.

Two weeks later, Girkin is acclaimed the leader of all separatist forces in Donetsk, and in May declares himself supreme commander of the DPR.

Was there anything more specific you wanted to know?

I do, however, see that if what you claim is true, and Girkin is the key to everything, then Ukraine could have easily won this conflict all the way back in 2014: — boethius

It could. But the russian military started shelling them and send regular army formations across the border to support the "separatists", at which point it became a stalemate as Ukraine wasn't at that point able to push into russian artillery and army formations.

This was the conversation in the Western media at the time. Russia was experiencing defeats and therefore could be pressured into a peace favourable to Ukraine ... though of course needing some compromise so that Russia accepts. — boethius

That military defeats might force russia to accept a peace more facourable to Ukraine is an entirely different argument from the one that russia always intended to offer such conditions.

Zelensky definitely is a stupid crazy person — boethius

Right. And this is why it's so useful to discuss with you.

But this is contradictory, because the cost is right there - if Ukraine is neutral it has much less protection against any future aggression. — Echarmion

This is not contradictory in anyway.

What is contradictory is to fight a war at a significant disadvantage on some principle to join an alliance that would offer protection from said war.

You seem to just want Ukraine to be in a better position than it is, rather than the reality that Ukraine is in a far weaker position vis-a-vis Russia and no way to remedy that without the war in question (no way to sneak into NATO as NATO doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, but rather NATO, at least the US, wants Ukraine to antagonize Russia and then create a "structure" where Ukraine fights Russia to the last Ukrainian).

Ukraine is a de facto neutral country, with zero allies that comes to its aid when Ukraine is invaded, therefore it is of zero benefit to Ukraine to not offer neutrality in exchange for peace.

If Russia accepted it (of course in the context of peace agreement that addressed plenty of other issues as well) maybe Ukraine would have avoided the war from starting or then ended it in the first phase and avoided significant pain, suffering and lost lives.

If Russia rejects it, or then makes other demands that aren't reasonable (from the point of view of being able to very likely win in a war against Ukraine) ... well you have the same war as you have now!! Just that Russia would be in a far weaker position diplomatically in attacking a country that professes it is willing to be neutral.

Insofar as Ukraine refuses to commit to neutrality, other large countries see that if they don't support Russia then they could be next with a similar kind of conflict; therefore, it's in their interest to help Russia win in order for NATO to be extremely hesitant to try to arrange a similar proxy war.

If Ukraine "bent the knee" and committed to neutrality, it would be far harder for Russia to make the case to its partners that the war is justified.

That is unless you think that for Russia, "neutrality" would mean simply that Ukraine is not officially in NATO but can otherwise get as much western military support as it wants. — Echarmion

Obviously Russia would not accept that.

As Blinken explained in public long before the war, if to do what you say and arm Ukraine to the point of having a credible deterrent to Russia, then Russia will simply match that capacity and if you continue Russia will invade before the situation got out of hand (from their point of view) which is exactly what has happened.

There is simply no way to arm and train Ukraine until it can credibly fight a war with Russia without causing said war with Russia.

You may not like it, you may feel Russia is doing something "illegal" (that we can't do anything about in the system of international law), you may feel Russia would not have valid reason to view Ukraine as a security threat, and certainly that Russia's invasion would be immoral in any case, but what you can know for sure is that a process to arm and train Ukraine to compete militarily with Russia will result in a Russian invasion to put a stop to that process.

Now, with incredible levels of support (financing the entire Ukrainian army, government and subsidizing a large part of the economy) you can keep Ukraine on life-support to fight a long war with Russia. You can, and people have, argued that's good for the West: a nice "structure" of having Ukraine fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. You can argue that's a moral and wise political thing to do; I disagree on both points.

Therefore, the only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war and the only way out of it since it started is through a negotiated settlement and offering concessions such as neutrality.

If you think the situation isn't fair for Ukraine: see Captain Jack Sparrow cited above.

If you think international law isn't working correctly ... well, they're more like guidelines ... than actual rules.

And you think that somehow this is an acceptable arrangement for Russia, that Russia would start a war over nothing but a formality? — Echarmion

Yes, this is a huge factor.

Had Ukraine formally declared neutrality, it would be a "diplomatic win" for Russia, certainly still plenty of issues that would need to be resolved, but it would be a huge diplomatic cost to immediately invade a country that just declared neutrality. I would agree if negotiations did not succeed then Russia would invade anyways, but it is a huge disincentive to invade a neutral country. There are plenty of neutral countries that larger countries could easily invade (some have no army at all), it doesn't happen because it would be a massive diplomatic cost, the neutral country presents no threats (no significant military of their own and no alliances or any reason alliances would even happen) so it is easier to do business than invade.

Ukraine could have easily sought a similar path that has worked fine for plenty of other neutral countries.

If you go to wikipedia there is a list of neutral countries:

List of countries proclaiming to be neutral:

Andorra, Austria, Costa Rica, Ghana, Haiti, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Panama, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Turkmenistan, Vatican City — Neutral country

So, you can believe such a similar strategy for Ukraine to remain sovereign would not work, but it clearly has worked for other countries and is a viable strategy. Proclaiming neutrality creates a large diplomatic cost to an invading army and also significantly lowers any "national security paranoia" if you are indeed not a threat to anyone, that may otherwise lead to an invasion.

In the case of Ukraine, what is clear is that the attempt to not-be-neutral would with near certainty result in the present war, and the strategy of fighting a war from a weaker position so as to avoid fighting a war in the future makes no sense.

Im talking about the right to self-determination as understood in internation al law.

This one. Not an abstract notion of freedom. — Echarmion

Sure, I specifically point out that it's not surprising nations create an international law in which only nations have right to self determination.

However, that is not a good argument to support the idea that all separatists movements do not have just cause as they don't have a "right to self determination" under international law. You'd need to argue how that even makes sense considering many of the nations concerned are the result of separatist movements they claim were just. Certainly it's not a some moral universal position.

But if you want a strictly legal view of things: coup of 2014 was illegal, therefore Ukrainian government since is illegitimate. What does the West say about the coup? Illegal but justified as "Ukrainians" wanted it, so is claimed; but even if true, a poll at some random point in time is not a legal process (that's what makes elections different than any poll).

That's all quite wrong.

The UN-Charta rules out violence in international relations generally, in Art 2 section 3 and 4. The security council has some specific and far reaching powers (theoretically at least), but it is not the authoritative body on how to interpret international law. Nor does it need to declare something an attack in order for it to be one, as among other things Art. 51 of the UN-Charta makes clear. And of course there is an entire body of international law part from the UNC. — Echarmion

Go on, please explain how you interpret international law without the security council and how that would mean anything. You're saying Israel left the West Bank decades ago?

That is not my claim, nor does your demand make any sense in context.

But anyways here is Igor Girkin telling us about his role in the invasion of Crimea, so Girkin is in Crimea from February 21.

On April 12, the Slovianks Police HQ is taken, apparently by a well organised "independent group". Later interviews from Girkin make clear that he was the leader of that independent group 1, 2, 3.

Two weeks later, Girkin is acclaimed the leader of all separatist forces in Donetsk, and in May declares himself supreme commander of the DPR.

Was there anything more specific you wanted to know? — Echarmion

You say it was all this Girkin and Russian mercenaries, and there was no popular support.

Does putting "independent group" in quotes meant to establish this was only Russian mercenaries with zero popular support?

It could. But the russian military started shelling them and send regular army formations across the border to support the "separatists", at which point it became a stalemate as Ukraine wasn't at that point able to push into russian artillery and army formations. — Echarmion

Well we've resolved which army is hopeless incompetent if they let this chance just slip through their fingers without even trying.

Girrrrkkkkiiiinnn!!!!!!!

That military defeats might force russia to accept a peace more facourable to Ukraine is an entirely different argument from the one that russia always intended to offer such conditions. — Echarmion

The demands were clearly offered before the invasion, neutrality being the main one and the easiest one to accept (as Ukraine is de facto neutral).

It's entirely possible Russia would have fought anyways to the conclusion of the battle of Kiev or then to the battle of Kharkiv and Kherson or fought anyways until now.

We can't evaluate what exactly Russia would have accepted at any given point to avoid going to war or resolving it once it started. We can evaluate what seems to be the main issues for Russia and what would seem a rational course of action but you can always claim Russia was "pretending" to negotiate.

What we can evaluate is the leverage of the different parties. If Ukraine is losing the war then clearly its leverage was higher in the past and now is much lower and will be lowest if it fights to a collapse of its forces entirely.

We can also evaluate that some concessions Ukraine can make cost nothing. Declaring neutrality costs nothing because Ukraine is already a neutral country with only itself to rely on, and accepting Russia has Crimea and Ukraine can't physically take it back likewise would cost nothing since Ukraine does not have Crimea. With respect to these things Ukraine doesn't have (actual allies, Crimea) we can also evaluate that the diplomatic cost would be incredibly higher for Russia's invasion if Ukraine "gave Russia what it wanted" on these two points, and since Ukraine doesn't have either its position to fight a war is unaffected.

Indeed, maybe Ukraine would have gotten the heavy weapons and air power needed to actually win a conventional war right from the start if Russia violated the "rules based order" even harder by invading a proclaimed neutral country. Certainly sympathy for Ukraine would be far higher if it had neutral status when invaded, rather trying to join a alliance that creates regularly reports, sometimes hundreds of pages long, on how Russia can be damaged in various ways, "extended" for example.

Right. And this is why it's so useful to discuss with you. — Echarmion

Oh, and definitely History will remember Zelensky as a stupid crazy person if it turns out it was obviously incredibly foolish to promise a total defeat of Russian forces on all previously help Ukrainian territory and he got hundreds of thousands of his comrades killed in this stupid and crazy pursuit.

But sure, maybe Zelensky is a military genius and is about to deliver victory across the entire front, and casualties have been like super low as Zelensky claims.

However, if Zelensky loses, it will also clearly become even stupider and even crazier the act of publicly making these promises as well as ultimatums to even restart negotiations that, as you point out, only make negotiations far harder (which Zelensky, and moreover Ukraine, would certainly need if they are unable to simply win on the battlefield).

Zelensky has zero political or military experience. He was able to pretend things were going well for a time, but it may turn out to be both stupid and crazy to make decisions based on what you're able to pretend is true rather than trying to see what is actually true.

Ukraine is a de facto neutral country, with zero allies that comes to its aid when Ukraine is invaded, therefore it is of zero benefit to Ukraine to not offer neutrality in exchange for peace. — boethius

As Blinken explained in public long before the war, if to do what you say and arm Ukraine to the point of having a credible deterrent to Russia, then Russia will simply match that capacity and if you continue Russia will invade before the situation got out of hand (from their point of view) which is exactly what has happened. — boethius

So it is not, in fact, the case that neutrality costs Ukraine nothing or that neutrality would be sufficient to satisfy russian interests.

Instead what Russia demands is that Ukraine be not just neutral but (effectively vis a vis Russia) disarmed.

If Ukraine "bent the knee" and committed to neutrality — boethius

So you're well aware that what Russia demands is for Ukraine to submit, yet you blithely go on declaring that this is of no consequence to Ukraine.

In the case of Ukraine, what is clear is that the attempt to not-be-neutral would with near certainty result in the present war, and the strategy of fighting a war from a weaker position so as to avoid fighting a war in the future makes no sense. — boethius

It can make sense to fight a war now to avoid a situation where you'd have to demilitarise and thus be without any defense in the future. If you have the capacity to resist meaningfully and force concessions, which Ukraine clearly has.

You say it was all this Girkin and Russian mercenaries, and there was no popular support. — boethius

I don't, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't lie so much.

Does putting "independent group" in quotes meant to establish this was only Russian mercenaries with zero popular support? — boethius

Who else do you think the fighters were, all upstanding Donbas citizens who just so happened to be on vacation in Crimea?

Zelensky has zero political or military experience — boethius

As opposed to you, no doubt.

And you think that somehow this is an acceptable arrangement for Russia, that Russia would start a war over nothing but a formality? — Echarmion

It should be noted that at the time of annexation of Crimea Ukraine had neutrality clause in its constitution, and the reason given was that the new government might some day allow Western forces to station in Ukraine. Thus the claim that Russia might be satisfied with any 'formal neutrality' is obviously false.

Thus the claim that Russia might be satisfied with any 'formal neutrality' is obviously false. — Jabberwock

Indeed. Formal neutrality hasn't left Moldova safe from Russia's interventions either.

We could also bring up this quote from September 23, 2023, by Sergei Lavrov:

Of course, we recognised the sovereignty of Ukraine back in 1991, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which Ukraine adopted when it withdrew from the Soviet Union. The declaration had a great deal of good written there, including that they will respect the rights of national minorities, Russian language speakers (Russian is specifically mentioned there) and other speakers. That was later reflected in the Ukrainian Constitution. One of the main points for us in the declaration was that Ukraine would be a non-bloc, non-alliance country; it would not join any military alliances. In that version, on those conditions, we support Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

And then in case someone wanted to argue that Lavrov here means that the only condition is Ukraine's non-block status, he says this:

We have no problems with the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It was destroyed by those who carried out and supported the coup, whose leaders declared war against their own people and began to bomb them.

So Russia accepts Ukrainian sovereignty - provided of course the internal politics of Ukraine are agreeable to Russia.

And this is the official diplomatic version.

It should be noted that at the time of annexation of Crimea Ukraine had neutrality clause in its constitution, and the reason given was that the new government might some day allow Western forces to station in Ukraine. Thus the claim that Russia might be satisfied with any 'formal neutrality' is obviously false. — Jabberwock

And , and others.

You guys have come to a point of really pure insanity.

Ukraine literally put the intention to join NATO in their constitution, basically declared that as their national mission and NATO reciprocated the fantasy by making partnerships of various kinds and explicitly saying Ukraine would join NATO one day (just left the fine print out that "some day", if it ever comes, is long, long, long after the day it would have been useful to Ukraine to be in NATO).

You can read about the above directly on NATO's website:

From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression. In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine's Constitution entered into force. — NATO's official website

The above is obviously not a commitment to neutrality.

If Ukraine remained technically neutral, it's only because it has no allies.

Russia's demands was a commitment to neutrality, obviously stronger than NATO literally explaining on their own website that Ukraine abandoned non-alignment and passed laws to make NATO membership a strategic foreign policy objective.

You guys are literally rewriting history on the fly.

It's truly incredible.

I don't have time today to deal with the rest of the nonsense, but don't worry your pretty little heads, I'll find time in the coming days.

However, you guys should really contemplate what brings you to needing to believe Ukraine was a neutral country all along a la Costa Rica.

It's truly incredible. — boethius

Yes, it is truly incredible that your reading comprehension is so low. But it does explain some of your views.

I have specifically written that AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA Ukraine had a neutrality clause.

'Neutrality clause' while NATO says it is going to incorporate Ukraine into its ranks and the US is funneling billions of dollars into Ukraine to support a coup d'etat. :monkey:

Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them. — George Orwell

The above is obviously not a commitment to neutrality. — boethius

Yes. As the quote you made yourself says: "Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression."

Do you understand what 'in response' means? No?

People in a philosophy forum ought to understand cause and effect.

Yes, it is truly incredible that your reading comprehension is so low. But it does explain some of your views. — Jabberwock

:100: :up: