Things have taken some U-turns.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for his country, while he also said he is open to "compromise" on the status of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas region — Peter Suciu · National Interest · Mar 11, 2022

President Volodymyr Zelensky has hit back at Russia's annexation moves by seeking accelerated membership of Nato.
That is a marked change from the start of the war, when he announced he would stop pushing for membership of the 30-strong Western defensive alliance because of Nato's concern about confrontation with Russia. He knows, however, that he will have to persuade every member state to agree, and Turkey for one is unlikely to. — Paul Kirby · BBC · Sep 30, 2022

Unless Ukraine is assimilated by Russia, this might continue, it's the Ukrainians' choice to make.

Recognition of Donbas, no. Recognition of Crimea -- maybe. — Xtrix

I'm guessing a neutral but independent Crimea would be unacceptable to Putin. Any chance of that?

it's the Ukrainians' choice to make. — jorndoe

Funny how this has all of a sudden become a rallying cry.

We've had over half a century of foreign aid being tied to economic reforms, punitive measures when loan repayments are not met. There's not a single country in Africa nor most of Eastern Europe that isn't having it's economy managed by the IMF or the World Bank or the World Trade Organisation on the grounds of their holding the purse strings.

Suddenly, the fact that the US and Europe are funding this war carries no duties or influence. Now we've apparently grown a conscience after 50 years of abuse and are now passionate about self-determination despite being loan recipients.

I look forward to a similar amount of indignation being raised against all the predatory loan arrangements that repress the economies of half the developing world.

Any minute now...

...

...

But it's not up to me. That's up to the people of Ukraine. No negotiation is going to be easy, and both sides will have to give something up. It cannot be that Russia simply gets everything it wants in exchange for peace, no. But then those aren't really negotiations. — Xtrix

It is the role of Ukraine in possible negotiations that has consumed so many pages of debate here.

For those that view the conflict as principally a proxy war being waged by the U.S., the terms are said to be ultimately between Russia and the U.S. For those who see Ukrainian's actions as directed by their own decisions and goals, their terms are seen to be central to any deal.

While it is obvious that the fighters cannot be decoupled from what supports them, treating Ukraine as merely a pawn in a geopolitical game is not going to lead to an end of the war.

Russia is far from a perfect nation. So are the United States. I don't see any justification for the cartoonish super villain role the Russians been assigned in western narratives. Such labels only work to bias the mind.

Yet the argument is frequently given here that "that's straight from Russian propaganda" as if that fact had some bearing on the likely veracity of the point being made. You'll agree, then, it has none whatsoever. — Isaac

If it came from Trump's mouth, it may be true, but I'd be wary. Definitely don't take his word for it. Same with Putin. I wouldn't say the same of Macron, or of Biden for that matter.

In fact, if Biden wasn't the president, his perspective is one I'd seek out.

Well that was a distracting waste of time. — Isaac

You're welcome.

If it came from Trump's mouth, it may be true, but I'd be wary. Definitely don't take his word for it. Same with Putin. I wouldn't say the same of Macron, or of Biden for that matter. — frank

I agree, but that's not the point. We're not talking about something I've chosen to believe because Putin said it, we're talking about something I've chosen to believe because it seems plausible which Putin also happens to claim (because it suits his agenda to do so). The argument levied is that Putin's echoing the sentiment makes it less likely to be true (or in some other way problematic to repeat). I'm saying that if I find some position plausible, whether Putin finds it propitious to repeat has absolutely no bearing on the matter's veracity.

The argument "that sounds like Russian propaganda" has no weight. Anything that's anti-Western may end up in Russian propaganda, whether it's true or not.

While it is obvious that the fighters cannot be decoupled from what supports them, treating Ukraine as merely a pawn in a geopolitical game is not going to lead to an end of the war. — Paine

Right, but of course it’s not that simple. As I mentioned earlier, there seemed to be a possible agreement in March/April until the UK and US discouraged the deal. On the other hand, if the US or UK suddenly wanted peace, it doesn’t mean Zelenskyy would automatically go for it.

I think a possible solution is simply for the US and UK to not interfere with negotiations. I’d prefer they encourage them, but that is neither probable nor (it has been argued) necessarily beneficial.

In any case — they’re not merely a pawn. But it’s hard to deny that this has become a proxy war.

I'm guessing a neutral but independent Crimea would be unacceptable to Putin. Any chance of that? — jorndoe

I would think it unlikely, but I’m no expert. It’s not a bad idea.

ok.

I'm only slightly surprised because I expect a little more from this forum, especially after 355 pages
— Xtrix

Me too.

Then again, if you look at the tradition in philosophy, you find every kind of political persuasion — Manuel

Philosophers don't really understand politics as practiced. Most of times, they theorize about some ideal forms of government, often favouring the philosopher-king or philosophers parliaments... In other words, they dream up the kind of politics that they fantasize doing, if ever they were in power. God forbid!

There are exceptions, if course. Machiavelli made a brave attempt at understanding power in its real, practical relationship with people. But it is telling that The Prince with all its bitter realpolitics, was born from his failure as a "philosopher republican" in Florence. The Florentine Republic was short-lived. Machiavelli was captured and tortured by the Medici. That would leave a deep realist scar on the most idealist thinker.

Then there's Marx. Must I go on?

Isaac:

Yet the argument is frequently given here that "that's straight from Russian propaganda" as if that fact had some bearing on the likely veracity of the point being made. You'll agree, then, it has none whatsoever. — Isaac

Also Isaac:

Your notion that human rights are associated with the Western Sphere of influence is nothing but Western propaganda. — Isaac

That's kind of the point I made.

Sensible ones (for the time they were writing in) also include Locke, Smith, Mill, Hume, Russell, Kant, Dewey and many others. Not utopians.

But then those you mention are problematic in many ways.

Imperialists see the World as zones of control. Other states can actually believe in the sovereignty of nations. — ssu

Understand.. But even if this is wrong, let's say.. The wrong right now is Russia's actual invasion. Not just soft influence.

And this question comes even more close to home for me: Why did Finland and Sweden choose to join NATO and not stay out of the military alliance. Well, it's kind of obvious, actually. You really have to be quite clueless not to understand why. — ssu

Here's the difference.. If Ukraine didn't ally NATO and NATO in turn brutally attacked Ukraine, that would be wrong. But they didn't. Russia did.

Except the second was preceded by supporting evidence from two experts in the field. Hence the adjunct "nothing but".

Had your position been "also" Western propaganda and I still raised it as a complaint you might have a point, but as it is, the difference between nothing but propaganda and also propaganda is cardinal.

What I'm arguing against is the notion that a position can be wrong simply because it matches some propaganda.

In your case your assumption was wrong because it was contradicted by those with expertise on the matter (not to mention your own data). That is was Western propaganda was proffered as an explanation for your fault, not evidence of it.

Ok. Here's my position: I want the war to end, and I want to find out how best to help that happen. — Xtrix

I think now most important is for the war not to get bigger. So I hope that Belarus can stay out of this: it is a balancing act, but I think that their own dictator can do this balancing act.

Conventional wars like this end with one side losing or being incapable of continuing. Or then simply both sides being understanding that they cannot win and the war is costly for both. If you look at for example the short wars Israel fought, the victory on the battlefield was very clear in the end. Or the Armenian-Azeri war of 2020. Once a conventional war starts, it doesn't stop because of diplomats, diplomats arrange peace-talks only if the situation on the battlefield calls for it.

Both sides here are willing to fight. For Ukraine taking Kherson might be a possibility, but what then is likely to be difficult is to cross the Dniepr. The troops now mobilized by Russia will simply take months to organize. The fact is that the West can keep up the level of military aid it has given to Ukraine, while Russia is losing that material as modern Russia is no Soviet Union.

For Russia to continue this war will likely mean that when the fighting is finally over, I think you will see political turmoil in the country if not earlier. But the outcome isn't obvious. My personal belief is Putin simply has to go. He has started now too many wars, starting from the Second Chechen war onwards. But as this is Russia, that may also happen when he dies of old age many years from now.

Here's the difference.. If Ukraine didn't ally NATO and NATO in turn brutally attacked Ukraine, that would be wrong. But they didn't. Russia did. — schopenhauer1

Well, Putin basically started the civil war that in Yugoslavia happened immediately (thanks to Super-Serb Slobodan Milosevic) now happens decades later from the actual collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the real tragedy here: Perhaps Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't manage many things well when the Soviet Union collapsed, but they managed to do it peacefully with only few skirmishes and little wars erupting (Georgia, Moldova and Nagorno-Karabakh). Those who have been born after this collapse are already adults and the Soviet Empire is really for many only in the history books. But Putin wants to reconquer at least part of that greatness and this is the end result. Yet in the end Putin will be like Milosevic for Serbia, an absolute disaster.

And now we have a huge conventional war in Europe, a war that is in it's eight year. Hopefully this will end in Russians rethinking just how smart holding to those imperial aspirations is.

In your case your assumption was wrong because it was contradicted by those with expertise on the matter (not to mention your own data). That is was Western propaganda was proffered as an explanation for your fault, not evidence of it. — Isaac

In the sense that you have evidences of such contradiction, or it's just your functional imagination at work as usual?

I've chosen to believe because it seems plausible — Isaac

Or it seems plausible because you have chosen to believe it?

Popper also wrote well of democracy, and many others.

But then those you mention are problematic in many ways. — Manuel

Marx and Machiavel were realists, almost scientific, using history as their lab. That's what I like in them: the respect for reality, at least as a general principle.

I don't see any justification for the cartoonish super villain role the Russians been assigned in western narratives. — Tzeentch

Agreed. "Super" is too much.

But Putin wants to reconquer at least part of that greatness and this is the end result. Yet in the end Putin will be like Milosevic for Serbia, an absolute disaster.

And now we have a huge conventional war in Europe, a war that is in it's eight year. Hopefully this will end in Russians rethinking just how smart holding to those imperial aspirations is. — ssu

Right, so I still don't get why there is much of an argument pro-Putin or whatnot.

Those who say NATO is imperial through the process of inducting new members depict Putin as the one who is being attacked.

A Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine would trigger "such a powerful answer" from the West that the Russian army would be "annihilated," said Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief.

"There is the nuclear threat, and Putin is saying he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing," Borrell said during a European Diplomatic Academy event in Bruges.

"It has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the member states, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing neither."

"And any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer -- not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side -- that the Russian army will be annihilated, and Putin should not be bluffing," he said.

________

Few people may know Josep Borrell Fontelles. Born 24 April 1947, he is a Spanish politician serving as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy since 1 December 2019. A member of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), he served as President of the European Parliament from 2004 to 2007 and as Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation in the Government of Spain from 2018 to 2019.

I wish this statement was not so broad. As I have said before, I would prefer the response to a tactical nuke be the enforcement of a no-fly zone by NATO and cutting the supply lines into Ukraine from Russia. If a source should fire at Ukraine, then fire back at that source. Being discriminate gives more chances at de-escalation.

Putin is a problem for the West beyond this war and the criminal annexations of Ukrainian territories. The authoritarian turn of his regime to grant concentration of power in his hands, the Russian growing military presence in the Mediterranean area (also through the Black Sea), in the Middle East, in North Africa, in the Baltic sea (encircling Europe), Russian attempts to corrupt the democratic life in Western countries (from state cyberwar to financing western politicians), Russian attempts to economically blackmail the West by compromising the trade of critical commodities (e.g. gas and wheat), Putin's nuclear threats, Putin's declared goal to challenge Western hegemony and his attempts to build an alliance with other countries to antagonise the West perceived as weak, all these facts justify the Western intervention in Ukraine.

It's not so much that the West tells Ukraine to do whatever they want, and Ukraine must do it, it's more in line with, we are giving you weapons, so you better fight the Russians to the end, don't focus on negotiations, as Johnson said, for instance. He was almost surely following the US/NATO line. — Manuel

So how do you imagine this? Ukrainians constantly cajole, shame and bully their allies into sending them more and better weapons faster, but they don't actually want to use those weapons to fight the Russians? What do they need them for then? And how does the US/NATO make Ukrainians on the ground go into battle and sacrifice their lives? By giving them dirty looks, or what?

Sometimes you say something so absurd I just can't imagine how you even come by such notions.

And as for negotiations, the situation is exactly the opposite to how you present it. It is the Ukrainians who are concerned that Western resolve may crack and they'll seek to make peace with Russia at their expense - and they have every reason to fear that.

Borrell probably means "the Russian army in Ukraine".

So how do you imagine this? Ukrainians constantly cajole, shame and bully their allies into sending them more and better weapons faster, but they don't actually want to use those weapons to fight the Russians? What do they need them for then? — SophistiCat

L.O.V.E.

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1580090899228418048