Certainly, China could press (independently from the US) for negotiations if they thought it useful, yes. But we were discussing the role of the US in pushing for negotiations. The US can't coordinate much with China these days, certainly not on this issue.

I wish that wasn't true.

Ah gotcha, war profiteering. It’s all staged so that military industrial complex makes money they’re saying? — schopenhauer1

Those kind of comments would have more weight if Russia wouldn't have attacked Ukraine, which makes them a bit dubious in the case of this war. The imperialist ambitions of Russia simply cannot be denied.

But in the case of China (which has last time attacked Vietnam in 1979 and had some skirmishes in the 80's with the country, which didn't go so well for the China) or Iran (which hasn't attacked anybody, even if it does give aid to various combatants), the profiteering argument would be more credible.

Some are saying that, yes. — frank

But at the end of the day, isn’t Putin/Russian military killing people to gain territory? How is that disputed?

Consider China's interests, particularly their eye being on Taiwan. If Putin succeeds in annexing a good deal of Ukraine through force, that creates a precedent that China could use to invade Taiwan. This means China may be more interested in Russia fighting on, than in Russia backing off of Ukraine.

But at the end of the day, isn’t Putin/Russian military killing people to gain territory? How is that disputed? — schopenhauer1

Some make the accusation that Putin is acting in self defense, or at least defense of what is rightfully his client state. Because the US has been supplying military aid to Ukraine, the idea is that Putin reacted in a way that should have been predicted. Therefore the fault goes back to the US and NATO.

Consider China's interests, particularly their eye being on Taiwan. If Putin succeeds in annexing a good deal of Ukraine through force, that creates a precedent that Chine could use to invade Taiwan. This means China may be more interested in Russia fighting on, than in Russia backing off ofUkraine. — Olivier5

Aha. All true

Instead, the US could discreetly ask Turkey or the UN to do it. — Olivier5

True. That’d be fine with me. Odds are rather slim, unfortunately.

your comment has that faint whiff of nefarious conspiracy theory. — jorndoe

Sounds like your issue is that you're only able to look at this conflict through a western lens, which might be why the idea of the US actively working to keep its competitors weak sounds like a "conspiracy" to you.

Stop being naive. The US is as cut-throat as any other nation - in terms of recent history it may be the most destructive nation on the planet.

For example, it's more straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — jorndoe

Sure. But how strange that they were all holding hands and singing praises before 2008. What changed, huh?

Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO? — jorndoe

NATO flirting with Ukraine is what started all of this.

What I find lacking in this discussion is the wider context. We're only looking at what is happening today, even though today's events are a direct result of things that happened 12 years ago.

Things changed after in 2008 NATO stated they wanted to incorporate Ukraine, which means NATO took the first step in changing Ukraine's neutral status. This both threatened to remove the buffer between NATO and Russia and Russia's access to Sevastopol

2013 was the point of no return, when the US showed it was willing to support regime change in Ukraine in order to reach its goals.

I do say this with the power of hindsight, but war was unavoidable from that point onward.

All the narratives, war rhetoric and propaganda is just nonsense to influence the public.

A neutral Ukraine, again? What happened to that? — jorndoe

Ask the Americans.

That’d be fine with me. Odds are rather slim, unfortunately — Xtrix

Now, yes. Never say never though.

At present, even if one could get some talks underway, they wouldn't lead to much progress, I think. At this stage it would be about opening a channel for future meaningful talks, not yet about using this channel for meaningful peace talks.

Diplomacy is slow.

Visualizing it, these talks (say in Istanbul) could start by the negotiators arguing for a month or so about the agenda and process issues, a time they would use to get to know the other team, their weaknesses, etc. Then, in another months or two they would review in detail the extent of their differences, take the full measure of the gap separating the two teams' positions. Then, realizing the challenge ahead in closing the gap, would come a period during which "confidence building measures" would be discussed. That is to say, not yet peace talks but talks about what behavior change from any of the parties could be agreeable and may improve the chances that the parties engage in meaningfull peace talks...

Etc. etc.

Better start sooner than later, then. But don't expect miracles.

US actively working to keep its competitors weak — Tzeentch

The primary way the US and Russia "compete" is ideological, not financial.

Because Russia is a dictatorship, profoundly corrupt, and militarily aggressive, the traditional American view is that it should be contained.

Visualizing it, these talks (say in Istanbul) — Olivier5

Speaking of which....


Kremlin expects Erdogan to offer Putin mediation on Ukraine on Thursday
By Le Figaro with AFP

Turkey, very dependent on Russian gas and oil, has been trying since the Russian offensive of February 24 to maintain good relationship with both Ukraine and Russia.

The Kremlin said on Wednesday 12 October that it expects Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make a concrete proposal to Vladimir Putin to mediate on the conflict in Ukraine, while the two men will meet on Thursday in Kazakhstan.

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/le-kremlin-s-attend-a-ce-qu-erdogan-propose-jeudi-a-poutine-une-mediation-sur-l-ukraine-20221012

You are being ridiculously sensitive, taking criticism of your position as criticism of yourself. Besides, what I actually said was…

You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment. — apokrisis

:roll:

NATO flirting with Ukraine is what started all of this. — Tzeentch

No, it isn't. Putin tried for the easy land grab and it's blown up in his face.

The Kremlin said on Wednesday 12 October that it expects Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make a concrete proposal to Vladimir Putin to mediate on the conflict in Ukraine, while the two men will meet on Thursday in Kazakhstan. — Olivier5

Ha! You called it.

Maybe we can end this without blowing the world up.

Maybe we can end this without blowing the world up. — RogueAI

That would be nice. :grin:

Ha ha. That was easy though, Turkey facilitated previous talks eg on freeing cereals export ship lanes in the Black Sea. Those negotiations worked, BTW.

Ha ha. That was easy though, Turkey facilitated previous talks eg on freeing cereals export ship lanes in the Black Sea. Those negotiations worked, BTW. — Olivier5

Let's hope they come up with something.

Yes, let Turkey reopen a channel. And let's hope it leads to something. I won't hold my breath though. Diplomacy is slow.

Theory on the nature of War - by relation to the necessity for opposition (related but not exclusive to Putin / Russia's waged War against Ukraine)

A truth I have come to believe is that the quest for meeting one's ambition, will be strengthened by the toil one put towards it, but everything needs opposition to propel it. Without it, one sort of has no rudder.

To pin oneself, in a certain context of the mind, against an idea, person, place, or thing, perhaps the entire world itself, is to spend time in the headspace that fuels a certain kind of ambition which more frequently designs is own perspectives greatness.

For if a worthy opponent, you will come to see both their weaknesses and strengths and then move with choice towards or away from what those are, letting it guide your capacity for the duration of time that the opposing force remains a focus, and get external clarity for what those ambitions truly are.

The next piece here can be ordered as such:

1) The considered heights and the reality of your current relation to them
2) The nature of your opposition- is it intrinsically good or bad? What are the layers to its goodness vs.
3) What are you willing to risk or sacrifice to compete with it? Put another way, how much must you test the system?
4) At what cost?
5) What will be the achievement?

The ultimate goal must be to make peace with it via discourse that ascertains new truths on both sides, at a later date, for why the opposition existed in the first place. To do so, will inevitably deepen insight and to not do so is to forego the entire point of why it existed in the first place.

And if the love that exists in the heart for both oneself and that opposition, for the war that opposition has battled as a result of its inherent nature, perhaps in mind alone, then it can be viewed as a worthy battle to have waged, by the degree to which it was initially just.

Consider a few examples:

-The Cold War and the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) and how it also paved a new path for peace. Also the ensuing space race.

-The rivalries of siblings - Venus and Serena. Peyton and Eli, or that within any family

The rivalries of artists - https://theculturetrip.com/europe/italy/articles/the-10-greatest-artistic-rivalries/?amp=1

The great rivalries of sports teams - Giants vs Dodgers. Packers vs Bears. Lakers vs Celtics. Others.

The rivalry of War, namely the Second World War and its accompanying ideologies, driving the West's fundamental value in freedom of thought

---

I am more interested to hear if this rationale is sound in broader contexts, rather than debate if it is true, in its entirety, in the case of the War in Ukraine. I put it here to spur broader discussion on the psyche of War, and how we contend with it.

As for the terrorist attack, it is defined in numerous ways, Oxford for instance defines it as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Is the bridge in Crimea used for civilian purposes in addition to military ones? Yes.

Is it a legitimate target? Sure. Was it a smart action to do this? I don't think so, look at the results of such actions. This much was predictable. — Manuel

"Terrorist attack" is how Russian officials and media frame it, and this shrill opinion piece seems to hew closely to their talking points. The author also calls it a "suicide bombing" without any evidence, which perhaps is just rhetorical flair (because suicide bombers = terrorists). While that is a possibility that has not been ruled out, there are reasons to doubt it (not that blowing up an unwitting civilian is any better from the ethical standpoint).

The Kerch bridge is the primary supply route for the Russian invasion force in South Ukraine. Destroying it would have severely degraded Russian logistics, so of course it was a legitimate target. The bridge supplies the very weapons and ammunition that the Russian military uses to kill civilians on a daily basis, so an argument could be made that a few civilian casualties (four people died in the attack) were an acceptable tradeoff for destroying it.

However, the actual damage, according to experts, is not expected to seriously disrupt the supply route, at least not for long. There is some debate over whether this was an unsuccessful strategic strike, or whether the effect was always intended to be primarily psychological. That the attack was apparently timed to Putin's 70th birthday speaks in favor of the latter hypothesis. (This is also one reason why it probably wasn't a suicide bombing: the driver made a rest stop just before entering the bridge, delaying the attack until the following morning.) The bridge was Putin's pet project - he saw it as one of his crowning achievements. And I agree with you, escalated attacks against civilians should have been entirely predictable. Personally, I am queasy about this affair.

On the other hand, it is de facto taken to be part of Russia. Obama applied the mildest of sanctions when the Russia annexed Crimea. It has important military value for Russia, given the naval base they have there. — Manuel

The fact that the bridge is located within Ukraine's internationally recognized borders is something of a red herring: since Ukraine is in a state of war with Russia, it would have been perfectly justified in attacking military and strategic targets inside Russia. Which it has done on a limited scale - without provoking WWIII, despite all the talk about Putin's supposed red lines. (And there have been some spectacular ops within Crimea as well.)

The scale has been limited perhaps more by Ukraine's military capabilities than anything else. Whether they cannot or will not carry out large-scale offensive operations against Russia, they make the best of this situation by maintaining strategic silence about the attacks that they do conduct, even within Crimea. Which is why it would have been very surprising if Ukraine's "special forces" openly admitted to carrying out an attack that was clearly designed to fall below the threshold of attribution. (Not that there is a lot of doubt about the actual responsibility.)

As for the US role in all this, they cannot "authorize" any attacks - unless one accepts the Russian propaganda line about Ukraine being controlled by the West. However, they do have a say in how the weapons that they supply to Ukraine are used, and they have always insisted that they should not be used to attack Russia on its soil (Putin's red lines again). That is also given as the reason why longer-range missiles are not supplied to Ukraine, even though they could have helped in the fight.

Crimea presented a difficult dilemma for Ukraine's Western allies, in that it is formally considered to be an occupied territory, but for Putin it is thought to be even more sensitive than actual Russian soil. Nevertheless, the stance that was adopted is that Crimea is fair game. This has been known for a long time, so all these scandalous revelations that the article strains to make (citing such explosive intel as an old interview in The Times of London) look rather ludicrous.

Not that any of this is of any relevance here: the bridge almost certainly was not attacked with Western weaponry.

Yeah Putin/Russian military is killing people to gain territory. How is that disputed? Where is the dispute?

Some make the accusation that Putin is acting in self defense, or at least defense of what is rightfully his client state. Because the US has been supplying military aid to Ukraine, the idea is that Putin reacted in a way that should have been predicted. Therefore the fault goes back to the US and NATO. — frank

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor?

You are being ridiculously sensitive, taking criticism of your position as criticism of yourself. — apokrisis

It wasn't critical of my position -- which you failed to grasp -- it was a strawman about a "neocon analysis" and then platitudes about bravely facing the world "as it is" by adopting "accurate assessments" (it's taken for granted that you have done so, I suppose).

So yes, I'll be sensitive about that in this case. I was careful not to add unnecessary, condescending commentary in my responses to you and didn't want to start down that path in this thread -- there's already been enough heat here. I figured it was best to point out that you were the one who initiated it.

Anyway -- this is boring. Be well.

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. — schopenhauer1

Having monitored this thread since its inception, I think the following axes of rotation are underway:

The argument over whether, and to what extent, the expansion of NATO membership is or was an existential threat to the Russian Federation.

To what extent or not is the conflict a proxy war to achieve U.S. objectives versus a fight for Ukraine for the sake of Ukrainians.

How much those first two issues reflect the element of 'globalization' and Russia's participation in it.

Who has done shittier things, Russia or other Nations, but especially the U.S.

It comes up a lot less in recent arguments but whether Ukrainians are more righteous than Russians, vis-a-vis rules of engagement.

So, your straightforward question has been diverted to other ones.

Sorry if you’re bored. :roll:

Now, yes. Never say never though. — Olivier5

I don't. I'll keep trying to push things in that direction -- I just don't see the odds of success as probable. But as long as there's a chance, it's worth doing. It's a similar attitude I have towards a lot of issues.

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor? — schopenhauer1

That's a good question. I think there's a thread of truth to it, but there's more going on than that. Honestly, I think it will be a few years before we get the historian's take on what happened.

I've been a bit busy today and my brain is a bit gone. Just from skimming, agree on some points, others not so much.

Thanks for the detailed response, will get back to you tomorrow.

Yeah Putin/Russian military is killing people to gain territory. How is that disputed? Where is the dispute? — schopenhauer1

I know, it's crazy isn't it?

It's almost as if there's a chance you might not actually know everything there is to know about the subject and other people have information to present that you're not already aware of.

It's almost as if the way things seem to you to be isn't necessarily the way things actually are.

... but you're right, how could either of those two things be the case... We should have come to you first.