It didn't happen, [...] — ssu

Are you serious?

, the Kremlin deciding to lay ☢ waste to Finland (or Ukraine) would be bad for Russia/ns. The Kremlin would have to harbor madness of sorts to go down that path, and there weren't even any threats of invading Russia, despite their cries about a "dire existential threat".

If standing up to them is "the abyss" (as in "not to be done"), then think about what you've forfeit. ssu mentioned deterrence having gone out the window, and it goes further than so, as history indeed tells us.

People can figure such stuff out on their own, without somehow having been tricked by the US.

By the way, I don't think the Kremlin needs an invitation in particular, they're quite capable of coming up with their own.

(As an aside, while sympathetic to pacifism, there's more to it. If a nefarious aggressor (warmonger) invades, and a third demands capitulation ("peacemongers"), and the rest demands to fight back ("warmongers"), then the "peacemongers" still stand to benefit in case the warmonger is repelled. That's fine by me (personally) I suppose, but might not be considered so in general.)

Are you serious? — Tzeentch

Yes, I'm serious. There were negotiations that didn't go anywhere. They failed. Not even a moments cease-fire.

So you are whining over about spilled milk.

But this is very typical. To uphold the pro-Russian stance here and in order to try to make the US culpable of everything, a very selective and illogical narrative has to be used along with "what-if" type hypotheticals like this. It becomes the mantra to be repeated over and over again.

If standing up to them is "the abyss" (as in "not to be done"), then think about what you've forfeit. ssu mentioned deterrence having gone out the window, and it goes further than so, as history indeed tells us.

People can figure such stuff out on their own, without somehow having been tricked by the US. — jorndoe

Why this is so hard to fathom is curious to me as this should be evident. A belligerent wants a peace deal only if a) the belligerent has gained it's objectives (won the war) or b) if the objectives cannot be reached AND continuing the war leads to a worse situation.

Option b) is what people refer to a true negotiated peace or cease-fire while option a) is just the victor seeking legalization of the victory and normalization of the situation.

This idea of "a negotiated peace should be reached because people are dying" is a view that a third party can have, but it's not how the belligerent sees it. Yes, wars shouldn't be fought. Anti-war sentiment can have an effect especially in democracies. Yet when the aggressor is authoritarian state, puts into jail people who oppose the war, the ways that in a democracy people can oppose a war and thus influence their governments actions isn't going to work. Also when the aggressor is transforming it's economy to a wartime economy, it isn't interested in international relations and thus sanctions don't work... especially if it can feed it's people and has the natural resources and an weapons industry to continue the war.

So you are whining over about spilled milk. — ssu

"Whining", haha.


The problem for you is that unless you want to deny the goings-on surrounding the negotiations, they directly contradict pretty much your entire narrative.

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. It's the West who blocked that deal. The Ukrainian delegation put its signature under it, whether you like it or not.

The "Russian territorial greed" narrative is swept off the table, and so is the narrative that the West is preoccupied in any way with the well-being of Ukraine.


I can still remember how people tried to deny the peace talks ever took place, and that we only had "unreliable" accounts like those of Sachs. Now that those sad refuges have been taken away, you're left pleading that these events were insignificant, which clearly they weren't.


Your narrative made some sense on February 24th of 2022, and stopped making sense literally a month into the war. You're living several years in the past.

The problem for you is that unless you want to deny the goings-on surrounding the negotiations, they directly contradict pretty much your entire narrative. — Tzeentch

If my narrative is that negotiations for a ceasefire have failed, how much does that contradict my entire narrative? :roll:

You are just building your own strawmen here.

Here are some military numbers plotted out, three graphs are about NATO, two global/general.
An overall rough trend was down-slope until about 2014, then up.

Russian ambassador sees no return to previous format of cooperation with Finland
^{— TASS · Apr 6, 2024}

Everything here will depend not so much on Helsinki, which has largely lost its independence in making decisions on foreign policy, but rather on the general policy course being pursued by Washington and Brussels toward Russia. — Kuznetsov

Seems to me that "lost its independence in [...]" is a wee bit exaggerated, albeit part of the story-telling. Say, Finland's border thing came from the Finns, not Washington/US or Brussels/EU. The Finns can likewise choose and decide other defense-related things themselves. Besides, Finland is free to leave NATO, though not free to not have Putin's Russia as a neighbor.

Kuznetsov blamed senior Finnish politicians for almost completely dismantling cooperation with Russia. — TASS

Right, the Finns and the Kremlin, not the US or the EU. Is "almost completely dismantling" (again) exaggerated?

there will be no return to the previous format of cooperation now that Finland has joined the aggressive military bloc [of NATO] — Kuznetsov

... seems like the Kremlin dismantling? Speaking of "aggressive", leaving Ukraine be, would go a long way to solving the Kremlin's grievances, it's kind of the central thing here, without which Finland and Sweden likely wouldn't have sought NATO membership.

As regards the situation around Ukraine, Finland has clearly joined `the party of war against Russia until they win’ here. Of course, we cannot but respond to potential decisions by the Finnish government in this sphere. Specific steps will be developed depending on real threats that these actions will pose to our security. The Finns cannot but realize that such a major provocation will not be left without a Russian response. — Kuznetsov

Going by actions·statements·rhetoric·regress·posturing·Russification and whatever efforts (of which some have heard enough), the Kremlin is the larger threat compared to NATO, at the moment, by a long shot. Had NATO demanded (or even suggested) that Finland prepare to invade/attack Russia, then I doubt the Finns would have been so keen on seeking membership, though they might have sought other strong alliances, which the Kremlin could label "aggressive" "major provocation" just the same.

can all defense be narrated as offense, can all defensive measures be cast as threats? — Apr 8, 2024

Going by prior NATO nuclear weaponry placements, I wouldn't really expect much in Finland. Belarus, bordering Latvia·Lithuania·Poland·Ukraine·Russia, on the other hand, has reportedly received nuclear weaponry from Russia. Then there's Russia's own placements (and posturing).

Surely you must understand the Kremlin has legitimate concerns about NATO troops in its historical sphere of influence?

Albania: Hardly
Bulgaria: Hardly
Czechia: Hardly
Estonia: Hardly
(East) Germany: Hardly
Hungary: Hardly ?
Latvia: Hardly
Lithuania: Hardly
Poland: Hardly
Romania: Hardly
Slovakia: Hardly ?

Moldova: Help
Ukraine: Help

Finland: Hey
Sweden: Hey

Anyway, not much new here. The Kremlin has visions; too bad for the Ukrainians that they got in the way of that.

The Kremlin hints at negotiations.

(Euronews, 12th April 2024) A draft Russia-Ukraine agreement negotiated in 2022 could serve as a starting point for prospective talks to end the fighting in Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Friday.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that the draft document that was discussed in Istanbul in March 2022 could be “the basis for starting negotiations.” At the same time, he noted that the possible future talks would need to take into account the “new realities.”

“There have been many changes since then, new entities have been included in our constitution,” Peskov said in a conference call with reporters.

This can be intrepeted many ways, but I think the new entities refers to the Oblasts annexed.

And naturally Russia disses any peace negotiations that Ukraine has proposed, I guess in Switzerland in June:

Russia has dismissed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s peace formula calling for Moscow to withdraw troops, pay compensation to Ukraine and face an international tribunal for its action.

Seems to me that "lost its independence in [...]" is a wee bit exaggerated, — jorndoe

Wee! :grin:

When the Finnish Parliament voted at 188 to 8 to apply for NATO membership, some might think that nearly like in North Korea. But there weren't US troops in the Parliament when deciding this, unlike as there were when Estonian Parliament decided to join the Soviet Union. :smirk:

(Estonian Parliament making the unanimous vote to join the Soviet Union in 1940. )

This can be intrepeted many ways, but I think the new entities refers to the Oblasts annexed. — ssu

That would be my guess, though based in part on the words being used: Reuters · Dec 13, 2022

:cough: pseudo-legalized land grab

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. It's the West who blocked that deal. The Ukrainian delegation put its signature under it, whether you like it or not.

The "Russian territorial greed" narrative is swept off the table, and so is the narrative that the West is preoccupied in any way with the well-being of Ukraine. — Tzeentch

:up:

I heard Mitt Romney say that if Putin isn’t stopped he’ll attack NATO counties and try to conquer all of Eastern Europe. :lol:

It’s just silly at this point. Ukraine will lose this proxy war, but hopefully not many more lives will have to be sacrificed.

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch

I don't recall hearing this. But please give an actual reference on it. And what happened to the "denazification"?

Besides, this isn't on the anymore.

It's not a proxy war to them. But who cares, it seems.

I don't recall hearing this. But please give an actual reference on it. — ssu

This is claimed to be part of the 10 points of Instambul Communque:
Proposal 1: Ukraine proclaims itself a neutral state, promising to remain nonaligned with any blocs and refrain from developing nuclear weapons — in exchange for international legal guarantees. Possible guarantor states include Russia, Great Britain, China, the United States, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel, and other states would also be welcome to join the treaty.
https://faridaily.substack.com/p/ukraines-10-point-plan

Then confirmed by Bennett and Arestovych among others (https://www.intellinews.com/top-ukrainian-politician-oleksiy-arestovych-gives-seventh-confirmation-of-russia-ukraine-peace-deal-agreed-in-march-2022-302876/)

This isn't a claim.

This is what happened, and everybody who cares about the truth more than cheerleading for team America has acknowledged it.

From neutral observers, to direct participants, to members of the Zelensky government itself - all sources which could impossibly be argued to be lying in favor of Russia - all have confirmed it.

It's not a proxy war to them — ssu

I’m sure the Greek communists didn’t think so either. Or the Vietnamese. So what?

a good pretext for fighting a proxy war it wanted all along — Mikie

Ukrainian people being caught up in this proxy war — Mikie

It’s a proxy war between the US and Russia — Mikie

It is a proxy war between the US and Russia — Mikie

this proxy war — Mikie

That's it? What the Ukrainians wanted has nothing to do with it? Irredentism and Putinian Russification have nothing to do with it? Democracy versus (regressive, proliferative) authoritarianism has nothing to do with it? Fears aired (repeatedly) by the Baltics, Moldova, the UN, whoever, are irrelevant? Regularly issuing threats to, and railing against, two or three or so largely democratic continents, while cozying up with North Korea, China, Iran, is irrelevant? Concessions, appeasement, setting precedence for others to make note of, is of no consequence? Ultimately confirming the Kremlin's rhetoric·shamming·stories·propaganda·aggression·whatever, in appearance and action, is of no consequence? Land grab? ...?

Well, that's a remarkable (and regrettable) example of tunnel vision — incidentally, the sort of thing readily conducive to bias. :D

Putin mocks planned Ukraine conference and says Russia won’t accept any enforced peace plans
^{— AP · Apr 11, 2024}

Maybe cold war music like Allman is an earworm of Putin's. :)


EDIT: forgot a couple links

That's it? What the Ukrainians wanted has nothing to do with it? — jorndoe

Ukraine wouldn’t have lasted a month without US involvement.

If you seriously doubt this is a proxy war, you really don’t have a clue about what’s happening.

Of course what Ukrainians want is important. What the Sudanese want is important. I just don’t see the US caring much about the latter.

, that's what I've been observing — tunnel vision, Kremlin-blinditude — that you write as if you

really don’t have a clue about what’s happening — Mikie

by reducing the war to your mantra, certainly not what the Kremlin is for, against, and about. Say, take the one bit you did mention in your response, maybe you could expand a bit on who's for and who's against instead, and to what end? (try, you can do it, clue in about it, references abound :grin:) And the other bits, there are a few after all?

This is claimed to be part of the 10 points of Instambul Communque:
Proposal 1: Ukraine proclaims itself a neutral state, promising to remain nonaligned with any blocs and refrain from developing nuclear weapons — in exchange for international legal guarantees. Possible guarantor states include Russia, Great Britain, China, the United States, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel, and other states would also be welcome to join the treaty.
https://faridaily.substack.com/p/ukraines-10-point-plan — neomac

Neomac, notice what @Tzeentch argued:

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch

Where is this kind of argument was my question. Please read what I say.

Ukraine wouldn’t have lasted a month without US involvement. — Mikie

If there would be NO assistance, perhaps an arms embargo on Ukraine ...for some reason, then I guess
the only response would have been an insurgency.

But do notice that Europe combined has actually given more than the US. And apart of Hungary etc. there isn't this whimping out from supporting Ukraine like in the GOP in the US.

(Kiel Institue, 7.9.2023) Europe has clearly overtaken the United States in promised aid to Ukraine, with total European commitments now being twice as large. A main reason is the EU’s new €50 billion “Ukraine Facility,” but also other European countries have upped their support with new multi-year packages. For the first time since the start of the war, the US is now clearly lagging behind.

Yes, this is more of the European's war and not an American war. So just thinking this is a "proxy war for the US military-industrial complex" not only disses European agency, but actually the reality, political and military, on the ground.

I’m sure the Greek communists didn’t think so either. Or the Vietnamese. So what? — Mikie

Because their agency matters. It's not just the US fighting a war through it's proxy. It's really about the proxy itself. The biggest mistake is that Americans don't care a shit about what their proxies are fighting for. They are interested to fight "the Cold War". Or fight the "War on Terrorism". They have little or no interest on what the actual people are fighting for.

Just compare these so-called "proxies" of the US. How did the former Afghan proxy compare to let's say the Israeli Defence Forces?

The Taliban took the country in quite a similar way the US had taken the country back in 2001-2002. By negotiation and bribes. You can see this even from the documentaries done during the collapse: first the Afghan special forces were fighting the Taleban in some provincial city. Then the next night word has passed and they all gather to the local airbase and try to get into the last planes going to Kabul. And during the collapse of Kabul the Taleban sought out the Afghani President, who accepted to leave quickly with hundreds of millions of loot to a Gulf State.

Now is the IDF a similar proxy? No.

But for some reason, the Kremlin propaganda has been so successful in making Ukrainians to be somehow this kind of lost cause, which Israel isn't, which has gotten far more military support for decades and face far tinier foes that Ukraine does.

But do notice that Europe combined has actually given more than the US. — ssu

So Ukraine should be doing just fine without American weaponry. Even discounting training and the fact that NATO is essentially run by the US.

Come on— let’s at least admit that without US support, Ukraine wouldn’t have lasted too long. That doesn’t prove my contention about the causes of the war— just seems a basic fact.

It's not just the US fighting a war through it's proxy. — ssu

I didn’t say “Just” meaning ONLY. That’s the big picture. On the ground, it seems much different— it’s Ukrainians fighting for their country against an illegal invasion. No one doubts that.

So Ukraine should be doing just fine without American weaponry. — Mikie

Well, we aren't giving enough support.

In fact my country has given very little, because we feel we haven't enough material for ourselves even.

Come on— let’s at least admit that without US support, Ukraine wouldn’t have lasted too long. — Mikie

That's easy to admit!

Without your support South Korea wouldn't have lasted. It would all be one communist Korea.

Without your support likely Israel wouldn't have lasted either. Or would be smaller than now.

So what's your point?

Neomac, notice what Tzeentch argued:

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. — Tzeentch


Where is this kind of argument was my question. Please read what I say. — ssu

AFAIK, there are no official documents about the negotiation proposal (which was not an agreement, of course, and far from being one) just reports, like this:

Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent

On the ground, it seems much different— it’s Ukrainians fighting for their country against an illegal invasion. No one doubts that. — Mikie

And they have here the agency. We are just giving them support. What's so wrong with that.

They can call it quits and there's nothing that the West can do about it, if that happens. The fact is that Russia simply isn't just going to cede back all the territory if Ukraine will be neutral.

Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. — neomac

OK! Thank you. :up:

The real question, which I do think is important, is how much Ukraine could trust Putin after Minsk I-III? Would Putin simply enlarge his army more, improve it, and then go later to deal with Ukraine? If Ukraine wouldn't get any help from anybody, what would be the reason not to continue some further time.

Remember that this is actually the reason why the Finnish leadership decided to join NATO. Once Putin came with this request that it should be consulted if Finland would join NATO or not (and the answer would be not), then it was the canary in the coal mine dying even before the February 23rd 2022 invasion. And once you had the invasion, there was the popular support needed by the people as to have only an "option to join NATO if necessary" wasn't anymore credible.

Just like asking foreign soldiers to inspect your military sites, to say that you have to change your constitution is something that countries can indeed oppose and to go to war about.

So what's your point? — ssu

That is the point: without US support, Ukraine, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraqi government, Israel, etc., wouldn’t have lasted too long. US support is crucial. Okay, then we ask: so what? Given this fact, the further question is: Why Korea and Ukraine and Israel or Nicaragua, but not Sudan or East Timor or Nigeria or Haiti?

Because it’s somehow in the interest of the United States to intervene or militarily support some countries and not others.

Therefore determining exactly what those interests are is what’s essential. And when we look into that a little bit, it’s not pretty.

And they have here the agency. We are just giving them support. What's so wrong with that. — ssu

Nothing wrong with supporting people against aggression. The question is: why these people and not others?

That is the point: without US support, Ukraine, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraqi government, Israel, etc., wouldn’t have lasted too long. US support is crucial. Okay, then we ask: so what? Given this fact, the further question is: Why Korea and Ukraine and Israel or Nicaragua, but not Sudan or East Timor or Nigeria or Haiti? — Mikie

So what?
What do you have against K-Pop? Of having South Korean electronic gadgets and cars? Of them being wealthy and not on the verge of famine?

Is someone invading Haiti? I think the Dominican Republic doesn't have intentions for taking the whole island to themselves (Haiti had earlier that kind of agenda).

All of these are individual cases. It's useless to make a generalization when you have such different situations and countries at hand.

In Ukraine there's a the clear cut case of international law. The clear cut case that US allies share similar objectives of keeping Ukraine independent. And the clear cut case that Ukrainians are indeed willing to defend their country.

And I would ask: what's the reason for intentionally eroding the credibility of NATO? You think NATO's useless for the US?