Yeah. Now you gave the Chomsky refute.
So not much interest in Ukraine, Ukrainian history, Ukrainian people, Putin's fixation in dubious history and the role Ukraine has for Russia or Russian imperialism and so on.
Because you don't live their. So we have to ONLY concentrate of errors that the West made. :smirk:
Well, we don't live there, yet we are talking...so I'll try to answer. — ssu
I point out my primarily responsibility: Western policy.
First, it's not an exclusive statement, we can obviously also talk about Russian and Ukrainian policy. Indeed, our policy would be vis-a-vis policy elsewhere so understanding that is critical.
Second, pointing out that the West was lying to Ukraine when it made all sorts of long term assurances ... I just don't see how we would be justified in ignoring that "because Russia bad". Is it justified to lie to Ukraine and manipulate it for our (mostly the US) policy objectives because "Russia bad"?
I just don't get how this logic is even supposed to work.
I disagree.
The real reason was that they simply couldn't fathom the idea that Putin would go and invade Ukraine even more than it had done 2014. That's it! — ssu
Ah yes, the "real reason" is because Western policy makers simply didn't even read their own policy documents and the long list of warnings by experts that Ukraine was a redline for Russia and a war would result if the West continued its policy there.
Furthermore, what was Minsk 1 and 2 even nominally about if not to resolve the war in the Donbas and prevent it from escalating?
You really think no one took that seriously during those negotiations, that it was a minor and irrelevant process because they "couldn't fathom the idea" of an existing hot war escalating?
We then have directly from the French and German leaders involved in those negotiations that it was to "buy time" ... well buy time for what? To build up arms to deal with an escalation in the conflict. Obviously, they thought that was a good idea at the time, and if they thought it was a good idea because arming Ukraine would deter Russia from escalating, well obviously they could therefore fathom Russia escalating the war as their plan was to mitigate that. But was that even the plan? Blinken himself pointed out that any buildup of arms in Ukraine would simply be matched, likely overmatched by Russia.
This whole idea that policy makers of the largest most powerful nations on earth are essentially children who don't even read anything, don't know anything, can't imagine anything untoward ever happening, is honestly one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole conflict.
All Minsk agreements and their failures had just put them to think that "Oh well, this is one of those frozen wars" as we know from various places. They have their own domestic politics, so they don't give much thought to a conflict before it actually happens. The only thing they were giving Russia was assurances that Ukraine won't be a NATO member. Naturally they cannot give that in writing, because that would go against the NATO charter of it being open to countries. But Germany said that they would be firm in not letting Ukraine into NATO. — ssu
Again, Merkel and Hollande literally sate Minsk was just to "buy time" for Ukraine. Where does anyone even try to explain what you propose here that it was just "oh well, back to domestic issues".
You're really arguing that Merkel and Hollande didn't have experts pointing out that a failure to unwind the war in the Donbas would potentially, perhaps likely, lead to Russian escalation? That everyone just expected Russia to do nothing if the Minsk process didn't work and fighting in the Donbas continued indefinitely. The conflict was not frozen, it was a hot war between 2014 and 2022.
Umm, what? That countries took Russian threats of nuclear war seriously and are timid then to back up Ukraine isn't because of the nuclear threats, but because they want war and not to protect Ukraine? — ssu
Yes, obviously.
If they wanted to protect Ukraine they would need to brave Russia's nuclear threats with their own nuclear threats: put boots on the ground and dare Russia to attack them and risk nuclear escalation.
If their actions are determined by taking Russia's nuclear threats seriously and simply avoiding nuclear escalation, that's just another way of saying they are going to let Russia win the war to avoid nuclear escalation.
So why prop up a half-assed war?
Because it serves several policy objectives that
has just summarized I think adequately.
The only thing I would add is that the war profiteering is fundamental in corralling US elite and politicians into going along with the war (until it has served its purpose of course). "US defence contractors go bling bling" is a much faster and easier way to explain the rationale for the policy to most US politicians, who are on a need to know basis and that's all they need to know.
And US politicians have no shame in just saying that "hey, this money is going to US defence contractors, not even leaving the US!" because that's how it was explained to them and it just makes sense.
Now your are starting again with the similar rhetoric "She obviously was so stunning, that her beauty sent mix messages. So it wasn't the rapists fault."
Oh poor, poor, POOR Russia. All the time everybody else wanting it to start wars. How wicked from others. :snicker: — ssu
It takes two to tango: I have stated many times that the fundamental cause of the war on Russias part is Russian imperialism.
The conflict is a feature of the nation state system and within our system simply makes a lot of sense from the Russian policy maker point of view. The Russian response is the expected response that experts predicted and that former policy makers predicted.
The difference is that Russia made a lot of attempts to avoid this situation through diplomacy. Putin has not come out and said he negotiated Minsk in bad faith, maybe he did, who knows, but he gets the benefit of providing us no basis of accusing him of bad faith ... because his counterparties admit to it first! Truly unbelievable.
We have a situation that is a recipe for war. The events as they appear in the public domain is that Russia attempted consistently to avoid the inevitable war with diplomacy and the West consistently pressed on towards the war even admitting that the little diplomacy that was engaged was bad faith.
Now, maybe Putin was masterminding the whole thing and playing the West like a fiddle, taking advantage of Western duplicity and cupidity, in order to bring the West along the path of war that Putin wanted, but it's convenient for a lot of reasons for all available evidence pointing to the US primarily pushing for the war that the US also wanted. That's possible, there's just no evidence for it.
That's the most lurid thought for a long time. But of course, as in your alternative universe the West has planned to get Russia to attack Ukraine (just like the beautiful women sent mix message with her stunning beauty), of course the only viable objective for the West is to have a perpetual war. Because...what else would the evil West want? (Hence with deduce that beautiful women want to be raped by rapists.) — ssu
Lurid thought in a long time?
I've presented exactly this though on numerous occasions. I've been presenting and defending the "drip feed hypothesis" since near the start of the war, and pointing out all of its predictions coming true: a new weapon system is only introduced when previous weapons systems fail to pose a serious problem to Russia.
Why not F-16s and all manner of fancy missiles for the much hyped counter offensive of last year?
Is it because "we can't supply F-16s and longer range missiles"? No, as we're doing that now.
The reason is because F-16s and a bunch of fancy missiles last year may have actually broke through and reached Crimea causing a "real problem" for the Russians (not something that is legitimately or then can be easily played off as a tactical retreat, while pointing out to achieving the critical military aims such as a land bridge to Crimea).
Now it's clear Ukrainian offensive capability is spent and so more advanced weapons can be sent in to prop up the war a little longer, such as avoid an embarrassing total collapse.
Likewise, the optimum time, from a military point of view, to supply Ukraine with Western tanks was day 1, as then logistics and proper use of the tanks with the most experienced crews could be worked out, even a working out the best use of Western and Soviet tanks respectively.
Most importantly, weapons systems are most effective when all the other weapons systems available are still operational and effective in order to maximize synergy.
Why this didn't happen?
Because Russia was vulnerable in 2022 with not so many soldiers mobilized; so had there been heavy weapons supplied to Ukraine then there was a real danger Ukraine's million man army if actually supplied with "whatever it takes" could have routed the Russians; continuing the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives far deeper, cutting the land bridge for example.
Now, even if the Russians retreating from Kharkiv and Kherson was a tactical retreat, they only needed to tactically retreat in the first place because they didn't have the manpower to hold, much less advance, in 2022. A tactical retreat doesn't mean your "winning", just is different from a route in that you can inflict heavier casualties on the opponent while the retreating (i.e. a well executed tactical retreat loses territory but at significant losses for the opponent, compared to a route which is both losing territory and significant losses of men and material); it's of course still better to not need to tactically retreat, and it was then when the Russians were weakest so more / better weapon systems would have had the most effect in the outcome of the war. Likewise Russia needing to deal with the sanctions, uncertainty in diplomatic relations, potential unrest at home etc. all amplified the weakness in 2022.
Basically, Ukraine's only strategic advantage in military terms in the whole war is the total mobilization at the start of the war. A smaller nation coming under attack can fully mobilize and covert rapidly to total war, whereas as invading imperial force doesn't have that option as easily (as invaders are less motivated than defenders, it would be embarrassing to need to totally mobilize, would cause all sorts of long term economic harms that an empire needs to think about).
The time to make gains for Ukraine, therefore, is at the start, in 2022, which is when we saw them make gains and additional weapons systems would have had optimum effect (as well as setup the experience and training needed to continue to use those weapons systems to keep said gains).
I pointed all this out at the time, that if we actually wanted Ukraine to "win" we'd give them all sorts of stuff. Instead not only do we not do that but we maintain this creeping Overton window of what we can even discuss giving to Ukraine.
Why the limitations and narrow scope of what weapons systems can even be considered?
Because the policy is not to support Ukraine in any sort of rational military way, but to prop them up to accomplish other policy objectives.
Yeah, sure, maybe "harming Russia" as some sort of lesson about invading other countries is one of those policy objectives; feel free to argue that, but what goes along with that is totally wrecking Ukraine to deliver this spanking and finger wagging exercise to Russia.
Or do about it?
It's still going on, the war you know.
I think it's up the Ukrainians to decide. They have tried to open negotiations. Putin still wants more territory from them and still the ludicrous denazification is there, so I'd say to continue supporting Ukraine until otherwise.
Likely Putin is still happy with the war economy that he has. If he gets to hold the land that he has, he can put is as a victory, especially saying that he was fighting all the West. Perhaps then Putin is then in his happy place, worthy to be remembered with Peter the Great, Stalin etc. A great Russian leader. — ssu
So basically continue with the status quo? Continue with the drip feed of weapons system that results in Ukrainian losses and no way to "win" the war. Putin gets what he wants.
But Ukraine decided that's what they wanted, if it was based on lies from the West about "whatever it takes" then that doesn't matter, so much ado about nothing in the end?
Am I reading you correctly?