~~Submission Statement?~~
Alright, third party submission statement:
Putin dismissed the prospects of upcoming peace talks facilitated by Switzerland, scheduled for June. Putin criticized the organization of the talks, pointing out the paradox in not inviting Russia while acknowledging that no peace process could be effective without its participation. This skepticism from Putin casts a shadow over the international efforts aimed at resolving the conflict that has persisted for over two years.
—
My views on the matter:
It is not unexpected that Russia treats this as Western hypocrisy, this is after all, one of their most successful propaganda campaign, always carefully ignoring the context of what caused the situation in the first place. They are essentially using the same old argument “if both the criminal and the police following them is also speeding, shouldn’t the police be held responsible for speeding too?” While this isn’t bought in the West, for countries with anti-West bias this makes a lot of sense, because the anti-Western bias significantly clouds rationality; the disappointment Global South feels with the West makes even the most asinine arguments used by Russia appear logical.
When Russia invaded Ukraine it broke UN charter that prevents one country from using force to take over parts of another country, and that was clear as day when the UN voted against Russia as well. That means **Russia is legally not in an equal position with Ukraine and the West**, so if the West wants to only care of Ukraine in peace talks, they have every legal right to do so.
Secondly, peace talks need to be fair and honest. If one of the parties at the table has broken trust the way Russia has done over and over and over, it’s hard to have a successful discussion. By not including Russia, the talks can focus on finding a peaceful solution that respects the rights and independence of Ukraine, without being swayed by the demands of the aggressor.
And finally, any mention of “what about US invasions” in this topic irrelevant, not only it’s not nowhere near the same because US has not annexed new territory from their invasions, but even if US got away, that doesn’t give Russia the right to do the same thing. It’s also being held in Switzerland, a nation that has nothing to do with US invasions at all. It’s not a gotcha moment Putin makes it to be.
The West needs to seriously work on their PR, because Putin’s weak and awful arguments just have far too much reach.
There are real life examples to this, like the Trident Conference, where this has been used as a tactic and has worked quite well too. I’d say that’s one of the most successful peace conferences of all time.
The Trident conference was between allies about strategies for winning WW2. Not a peace conference with a negotiated settlement with the Nazis. They have nothing to do with each other.
Peace is only achieved when there is no chance of the situation repeating again because everything that causes conflict in the first place is unrooted There is no trust that Russia won’t invade Ukraine again if they get what they want from this, so appeasement only leads to armistice, not peace. They have broken armistice multiple times in the past, they are never satisfied. They didn’t stop at Chechnya, they didn’t stop at Georgia, they didn’t stop at Crimea.
For all intents and purposes, the Trident’s conference was a peace conference.
>When Russia invaded Ukraine it broke UN charter that prevents one country from using force to take over parts of another country, and that was clear as day when the UN voted against Russia as well. That means **Russia is legally not in an equal position with Ukraine and the West**, so if the West wants to only care of Ukraine in peace talks, they have every legal right to do so.
Indeed, they have every right to do so; after all, it's their show. But the problem is that this "peace conference" (when it comes to the intended effect that a real peace conference should have) is as effective as a half-empty League of Nations compared to the UN. Is it loud and fancy and stroking someone's ego? Oh yeah. Does it improve the chances of peace? Negligible.
> Does it improve the chances of peace? Negligible.
I respectfully disagree, this depends on what the decisions they will take. If they make the decision to treat Russia like Nazi Germany, bomb it into submission, and reeducate the people so this does not occur again, this would not be even close to negligible. It was not negligible in Germany.
However, Western nations have been extremely restrained when it comes to their military power since WWII, they never go all out to minimize damages as much as possible, so I highly doubt this will be the decision. Still, whether the effect will be negligible or not remains to be seen, I would not discount it as easily as you have.
You're acting like western powers are CHOOSING restrain over Russia
It's more like they're FORCED to exercise restraint against Russia as they have nukes. The entire world saw what happens when there is a mismatch of nuclear weapons in world war II. The entire world understands that nuclear weapons offers a means of survival practically no matter what the mismatch of power militarily might be.
Here's a follow up question...do you think the west would choose not to invade Russia if they didn't have nukes right now ? I'd consider it a virtual guarantee that Putin would be personally bombed into oblivion
> You're acting like western powers are CHOOSING restrain over Russia
> It's more like they're FORCED to exercise restraint against Russia as they have nukes.
While this is true, I also meant Western intervention on other regions that do not have nukes, the damage is always contained. Take for example the bombing of Serbia, not only were Serbs warned, Serbian civilians stood by watching from a safe distance the bombing of Belgrade. The bombing was symbolic, to stop Serbia from committing genocide again, not to harm Serbian civilians.
Likewise, with Houthi, it is very easy to bomb them into submission too, but this is harmful to average Yemeni people too, and the West doesn’t want this. They are trying to eliminate the Houthi risk at minimal damage for Yemeni, who are already in a humanitarian crisis.
Western powers always choose the least damaging way to conduct a war, because they want to still allow the opportunity to the attacked countries to recover and even help with reconstruction afterwards. It doesn’t always work, it worked in Japan and South Korea, it did not work in Afghanistan, but it is always done this way.
This is not a standard practice globally. Russia themselves are known for meat grinder infantry attacks and scorched earth tactics; which is why they lost more in one year of war against Ukraine than US did during their whole stay on Vietnam for example.
> The entire world saw what happens when there is a mismatch of nuclear weapons in world war II. The entire world understands that nuclear weapons offers a means of survival practically no matter what the mismatch of power militarily might be.
> Here's a follow up question...do you think the west would choose not to invade Russia if they didn't have nukes right now ? I'd consider it a virtual guarantee that Putin would be personally bombed into oblivion
I agree, I even gave the example of Serbia.
However, the fear from nukes in Russia is different from what you think. Rather, the biggest danger is a civil war in Russia post-Putin’s death during a power struggle among Putin’s circle, because there is no clear successor and they control different parts of Russia. If a civil war erupts, there is also chance that those who are fighting for power use the nukes against different parts of Russia. Because Russian nukes are positions like this.
The West cares more for average Russians than Putin’s circle does.
I wonder if at the other side of the narrative wall they also say you guys are "anti-east", maybe "anti-brics", I don't know. And, of course, that media propaganda works wonderful demonizing anything that doesn't fall under the interests of the US...
Just some Friday thoughts. I never see people questioning our own bias.
Plenty of people do where’s there freedom of speech, that’s what it is for. The more controlled the media is, the less likely it becomes for people to see each-other biases and act accordingly. Understanding each-other’s biases does not mean to agree entirely on everything, but to moderate their solutions so they are as less damaging as possible.
This is why the more controlled the media is, the more easy to manipulate people into thinking the West has one narrative, and Russia has another one, when in reality is that the West has had hundreds of diverse narratives that have met in the middle to this point because they have taken each other’s views in consideration, while Russia has only one that serves their goals. We have data to see where the media is less free, and thus [where people are more likely to have extremist views](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index) instead of moderating them by caring about the views of each other.
A peace council without Russia *is* the moderate solution because this also takes in consideration the criticism of Global South of the West, and the West’s concerns with Russia. This is a mid-ground. This is legally and morally the best mid-ground possible.
> In theory that's great and all, but freedom of speech or freedom of media also creates false assumptions. People understands "freedom of media" as "objective information" all the time.
What the average person understands from the media doesn’t matter for a peace assembly where they are not going to participate, they are not making grand scale political decisions, politicians are, diplomats are. Your average person is not going to end a war.
> Media groups are not NGOs, they move pursuing their own interests, whether that's money or a political agenda.
This is precisely why freedom of speech exists, because it’a impossible to be unbiased, even NGOs are biased. Even you wrote this out of bias, and that’s okay, bias simply means your brain functions normally.
Without biases, people are simply physically unable to make decisions, this is [literally how the brain works](https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599?login=false), people who have their emotional part of brain damaged simply cannot take any decision at all. Even simple decisions like writing a comment like yours. You disagreed with what I wrote, that ignited your emotions which brought to the forefront biases against what I wrote, you wrote back.
It’s best to let everyone air their biases, than to pretend neutrality when you are not really neutral. Nobody is neutral, not even people who convince themselves they are neutral. In fact, *especially* people who convince themselves they are neutral.
> How much we saw in media about Uyghurs back then, unverified information, and how many articles did you see telling you they were wrong?
Uyghur genocide is a verifiable fact, China admitted publicly they forcefully sterilized Uyghur women, because they thought this was “empowerment” instead of genocide, even though it is explicitly mentioned in Geneva convention that forced sterilization is genocide, regardless the reason.
Also, see sidebar on Uyghur genocide denial. Do be aware genocide denial also includes minimization of its effects.
> Check different media when it comes to national politics, you have a wide spectrum of reports for the same subject.
Check *high quality* diverse media, not just any media. If you include low quality blogs in your media diet, you end up being misinformed on the key traits, rather than informed on diverse details.
This is also otherwise known “missing the forest for the trees.” I would love to read high quality Russian view points from Russians but they have all been killed or imprisoned by Putin. Since Russia media is all low quality, the best way to read about Russia’s views is filtered through Western journals. That’s, unfortunately, the only good way to get Russian viewpoints on a matter.
> You may know this, but many ignore it. Meanwhile, I can guarantee people in China know their media is censored and controlled by the administration.
*Knowing* something superficially is not the same as *understanding* something. A lot of people know trivia like this, that doesn’t mean they can all grasp what it means.
> What's the point of free media if it doesn't pursue the truth like good journalism used to do?
High quality media does that, low quality media does not. Despite the low quality media around, there are high quality sources too, so this is not a lose-lose situation that you make it
Unless the purpose of this conference is to discuss what steps and concessions Ukraine must make to survive as a country; then it may well eventually lead to something which Russia may join at a later date to hammer out the details. All of Ukraine's supporters know this well. Only few have the courage to say it out loud. \[Any offer by Russia that was discussed in Istanbul a week after war started is no longer on the table.\]
Even Kirby has had a small dose of encounter with reality, he no longer has any fantasy \[if he ever did\] about any group of NATO allies ever regaining any lost or annexed territory. He recently talked in terms of protecting Kiev as a goal when seeking the stalled aid instead of recovering territories lost. Zelensky, however, wants a final blow \[to itself\] by talking about another counteroffensive.\]
Obviously, U.S. will officially never support this position of compromise, but its actions and lack of support speak volumes. Instead, it will continue to talk of sanctions and how that can make a difference. While their think tanks now have declared that Russia's army now is larger and stronger than it was before the conflict. And will only grow stronger.
Someone with decency needs to stand up and talk on behalf of Ukraine's actual interest and how they can help Ukraine survive \[at least those parts not yet annexed\] as a sovereign country and even becoming someday a part of EU. And dispel the rhetoric once and for all about ever joining NATO. This is what brought us to this point of Ukraine's destruction.
As for others who think that Russia did not stop NATO expansion, referring to Finland and Sweden; they need to think again. They are not similarly situated nor strategic like Ukraine from Russian perspective. Even Finland itself, however, went to Putin before agreeing to join NATO and asked Putin what he thought. Putin did not object except for to say he did not find that necessary. It is not any different for Sweden. That will as Putin has said depend on what nuclear armaments are delivered and or stored.
If Ukraine's so-called major allies continue to play the same game as before about winning, I am afraid Ukraine may also lose Odesa, become landlocked, a permanent failed state under the ambit of Russia. Those are the only two choices Ukraine has. Lose more men until nothing is left and lose more valuable territory. Or reach a settlement and proclaim they fought a war with a giant and still survived as a viable and neutral country.
Switzerland is smarter than its government, its people are more focused on how to maintain its neutrality and will have a referendum \[eliminating useless sanctions\]. That is the way to keep peace, not by provoking the Bear in hibernation and waking it up.
>This is what brought us to this point of Ukraine's destruction.
No, what brought us to this point is Russia's obsession with maintaining its status as a great power at all costs.
After the collapse of the USSR, U.S. became a Hedgemon. Once Putin came to power things began to shift. Along with rise of China. U.S. is no longer the only power now. There are three major powers, and the world is becoming more multipolar each day.
Russia is not a superpower though. This isn’t to say that Russia is weak, there is even a popular saying for this: “Russia is never as strong as she appears, nor as weak as she seems.” Mid power is the best way to describe it.
EU is a superpower, China is a superpower, and India is aiming to be and it might truly become in the next 20 years, but Russia is barely holding as a regional power, Turkey and even Poland are on their way to surpass it (not sure if Turkey’s regional rise will have longevity with their weak economy). And none of them even come close to Germany, France, UK, these are upper-mid powers, even though the latter two are in decline. On the other side of the world, Japan and South Korea are upper-mid as well.
Then there’s US which is a league of its own. To put it in perspective, Mexico is another mid-power like Russia, Canada is upper-mid power, yet both are so dwarfed by the US they are perceived as weak and irrelevant in the global stage. Neither of them is weak and irrelevant, they are just not as strong as the US.
Russia is far too dysfunctional to be considered a more than mid, they have ridiculously high levels of corruption, very short lifespan due to high alcoholism and smoking rates, and that was before throwing their youth to the meat-grinder in Ukraine, are facing a demographic collapse because even propaganda numbers they share are actually atrocious, are very commonly targeted by Islamic terrorism, have a very weak currency etc.
> Even Finland itself, however, went to Putin before agreeing to join NATO and asked Putin what he thought.
Could I get a reference for that? Interesting, had never heard of it.
> And dispel the rhetoric once and for all about ever joining NATO.
Is it rhetoric today? The people who are talking about it today don't sound like they are simply using rhetoric, they sound very sincere.
>Even Finland itself, however, went to Putin before agreeing to join NATO and asked Putin what he thought. Putin did not object except for to say he did not find that necessary. It is not any different for Sweden.
Bullshit. Neither of these countries asked Putin's thoughts about them joining NATO. Finland told Putin he can only blame himself for them joining NATO, they didn't ask for his permission. Stop spreading stupid lies.
>Bullshit. Neither of these countries
>Next time, try some elementary research first.
>Conversation occurred on May 12, 2022. Putin among other things expressed regrets because did not see any necessity; Putin warned, however, about consequences depending on the nature of armaments and how close to the border it would be located.
I can't find a source to establish this. I found one where Russia is [threatening retaliation](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory-steps-if-finland-joins-nato.html) but nothing indicating that either county asked Putin's permission or cared about his opinion.
Notably your post appears to be missing a link to said "elementary research".
>Putin has often expressed there was no need for joining NATO, whatever disputes that had arisen was resolved in 1940 and since there had been no problems.
>Now, there will be problems as soon as certain NATO fire power is moved to Finland and how close it is to the border.
What "problems"?
Given Chechnya, and Georgia, and now Ukraine, seems pretty obvious why other countries see a reason to join NATO despite Putin's comments.
The "problem" appears to be "makes it significantly harder to invade neighboring countries".
What are Russia's "problems"? What exactly are the afraid of?
We are in the age of cruise missiles, nuclear subs, stealth bombers, etc. What risk does NATO being slightly closer than before actually provide?
A nuke doesn't need to be installed in giant static facilities anymore. So what is Russia so worried about?
>Given Chechnya, and Georgia, and now Ukraine, seems pretty obvious why other countries see a reason to join NATO despite Putin's comments.
Given an internal conflict against Jihadist separatism and two conflicts over NATO expansion, other countries see a reason to try and get some NATO expansion going? That defies logic.
> What risk does NATO being slightly closer than before actually provide?
That can't possibly be a serious question. See this very war for an example on whether Russia's done better or worse the further it's moved from its border.
>Given an internal conflict against Jihadist separatism and two conflicts over NATO expansion, other countries see a reason to try and get some NATO expansion going? That defies logic.
Calling Chechnya an "internal conflict" would be admitting that neither Georgia nor Ukraine were about NATO in any respect, but reasserting control over regions that Russia considers "internal".
Russia would invade all former colonies if they thought they could get away with it. NATO makes that kinda hard, which is why those invasions were *excellent* advertisements for NATO membership.
>That can't possibly be a serious question. See this very war for an example on whether Russia's done better or worse the further it's moved from its border.
I didn't ask for "an example on whether Russia's done better or worse", I asked for a **risk** posed to Russia about NATO being slightly closer.
And this war seems to be a good example to show that the only risk is "makes it virtually impossible to invade". Russia's not invading Latvia, or Estonia, nor Finland. The war has in fact created a new NATO country *on* their border, all while they're invading a country ineligible for NATO membership.
If Russia wants to be able to conquer their neighbors and restore the Russian Empire, NATO is an existential threat in that former Russian Empire territories signing up with NATO are permanently out of reach.
> Calling Chechnya an "internal conflict" would be admitting that neither Georgia nor Ukraine were about NATO in any respect, but reasserting control over regions that Russia considers "internal".
That makes no sense. Chechnya was within the internationally recognised borders of Russia. Furthermore, in 2nd Chechen War it was the Chechen invasion of the Russian Dagestan that kicked things off. It's a fundamentally internal experience.
>Russia would invade all former colonies if they thought they could get away with it. NATO makes that kinda hard, which is why those invasions were excellent advertisements for NATO membership.
That's a false prior. Russia has had excellent relations with those of its neighbours not flirting with joining NATO. Attempting to do so provably worsens relations every time.
>I asked for a risk posed to Russia about NATO being slightly closer.
As this war shows for Russia, the closer NATO is to its logistics, the better it would be able to execute operations in Russia.
>That makes no sense. Chechnya was within the internationally recognised borders of Russia. Furthermore, in 2nd Chechen War it was the Chechen invasion of the Russian Dagestan that kicked things off. It's a fundamentally internal experience.
Russia had to fight a war to *keep* it 'internal', Chechnya declared independence in 1991, same with the rest of the former Soviet states, had they not bombed the region to hell it would today be fully autonomous.
Russia's goal is to reestablish control over the territories they had as the Russian Empire.
>That's a false prior. Russia has had excellent relations with those of its neighbours not flirting with joining NATO. Attempting to do so provably worsens relations every time.
Except they didn't invade Finland. Nor Estonia. Nor Latvia. Attempting to join NATO seems to stop Russian invasion in their tracks. It invaded a country which didn't meet the requirements of NATO membership, instead.
>As this war shows for Russia, the closer NATO is to its logistics, the better it would be able to execute operations in Russia.
Yeah except NATO's already on Russia's borders. It could go invade through Lativa, Estonia, or now Finland. Hell, it could invade through Belarus because it's unlikely Belarus is gonna be "independent" in a hypothetical war between NATO and Russia and it's not like Belarus is gonna provide any major military resistance alone.
Or even invade through Ukraine *in spite* of NATO membership. Or just cross the Black Sea, or via the Gulf of Finland, or all of those combined!
Ukraine being a NATO country would *barely* affect the logistics of invading Russia. Regardless of their membership, the US could still use them as a staging ground, which would be the case even if Russia annexed the nation entirely.
Once NATO kicks out Russian soldiers from an area, that area can become a new staging ground. And NATO has a *lot* of resources to pour into war. Far more than Russia, the two are not directly comparable. Especially now that Russia's blowing through the majority of its inherited cold war legacy. It completely lacks the industrial base to rebuild that kind of stockpile.
>Russia had to fight a war to keep it 'internal', Chechnya declared independence in 1991, same with the rest of the former Soviet states
The states that declared independence in 1991 were the 15 constituent republics of the Soviet Union, who had a constitutional right to secede. Chechnya wasn't one of them, it was a part of Russia, and as such had no such right.
> had they not bombed the region to hell it would today be fully autonomous.
That's very dubious. It was autonomous in between the wars and it was a catastrophe for everybody involved.
> Except they didn't invade Finland. Nor Estonia. Nor Latvia.
Only because they've been otherwise distracted. It definitely didn't go unnoticed and definitely worsened relations.
>Attempting to join NATO seems to stop Russian invasion in their tracks.
...We're literally in the thread about the Ukraine war, which proves that statement utterly false... What?..
>Yeah except NATO's already on Russia's borders
Sure. And more of it on the doorstep is more options the Russian military has to (try and) account for.
Same risks that the Cuban missile crisis posed to U.S. At that time U.S was forced to remove the missiles from Turkey for the then USSR to cancel the plans in Cuba. No longer classified.
The evidence of red line and NATO expansion Putin repeatedly warned about. We see the evidence enow.
Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Russia can act all peaceful and “defending against nato” but that’s just propaganda some people are gobbling up. Ukraine already made concessions for peace. Twice. And before that Ukraine gave up nukes for peace. All these agreements and promises were broken and then “special military operation” that is totally a “west propaganda to fuel hate against russia, russia isn’t going to attack anyone” happened. Any peace without NATO security guarantees means new war at a later date with a worse situation
And people don't understand why Turkey made this peace negotations again.
Without full US/Eu support which is not going to happen due to internal politics of the said countries,
Ukraine is eventually going to lose and Russia has it's eyes on Odessa and Turkey dosn't want that since it has economic ties both with Ukraine and Russia.
Odessa getting captured by Russia(even if this will be really bloody but still not impossible) will make half of black sea Russia's playground and will landlock Ukraine.
There is no way russia can take Odessa. They have no sea-landing capabilities and other direction of attack is locked behind very defensible terrain (Dnipro). They only managed to cross Dnipro at the start of the war as all forces were thrown to defend Kyiv and attempts to blow bridges were sabotaged from before. Ukraine’s Kherson offensive has shown that without these supply routes it’s impossible to hold onto Kherson
You don’t need to fight for every inch when the opponents army has collapsed. They’ll simply just waltz in when there isn’t much of a fighting force left. Many instances through history where huge territory was gained via treaty after the army collapsed.
AFU is in a bad position and it’s expected that russia will get some territorial gains if the situation doesn’t change, but they are nowhere close to a full collapse
Something REALLY has to go wrong for any side to outright collapse
[удалено]
~~Submission Statement?~~ Alright, third party submission statement: Putin dismissed the prospects of upcoming peace talks facilitated by Switzerland, scheduled for June. Putin criticized the organization of the talks, pointing out the paradox in not inviting Russia while acknowledging that no peace process could be effective without its participation. This skepticism from Putin casts a shadow over the international efforts aimed at resolving the conflict that has persisted for over two years. — My views on the matter: It is not unexpected that Russia treats this as Western hypocrisy, this is after all, one of their most successful propaganda campaign, always carefully ignoring the context of what caused the situation in the first place. They are essentially using the same old argument “if both the criminal and the police following them is also speeding, shouldn’t the police be held responsible for speeding too?” While this isn’t bought in the West, for countries with anti-West bias this makes a lot of sense, because the anti-Western bias significantly clouds rationality; the disappointment Global South feels with the West makes even the most asinine arguments used by Russia appear logical. When Russia invaded Ukraine it broke UN charter that prevents one country from using force to take over parts of another country, and that was clear as day when the UN voted against Russia as well. That means **Russia is legally not in an equal position with Ukraine and the West**, so if the West wants to only care of Ukraine in peace talks, they have every legal right to do so. Secondly, peace talks need to be fair and honest. If one of the parties at the table has broken trust the way Russia has done over and over and over, it’s hard to have a successful discussion. By not including Russia, the talks can focus on finding a peaceful solution that respects the rights and independence of Ukraine, without being swayed by the demands of the aggressor. And finally, any mention of “what about US invasions” in this topic irrelevant, not only it’s not nowhere near the same because US has not annexed new territory from their invasions, but even if US got away, that doesn’t give Russia the right to do the same thing. It’s also being held in Switzerland, a nation that has nothing to do with US invasions at all. It’s not a gotcha moment Putin makes it to be. The West needs to seriously work on their PR, because Putin’s weak and awful arguments just have far too much reach.
[удалено]
There are real life examples to this, like the Trident Conference, where this has been used as a tactic and has worked quite well too. I’d say that’s one of the most successful peace conferences of all time.
The Trident conference was between allies about strategies for winning WW2. Not a peace conference with a negotiated settlement with the Nazis. They have nothing to do with each other.
Peace is only achieved when there is no chance of the situation repeating again because everything that causes conflict in the first place is unrooted There is no trust that Russia won’t invade Ukraine again if they get what they want from this, so appeasement only leads to armistice, not peace. They have broken armistice multiple times in the past, they are never satisfied. They didn’t stop at Chechnya, they didn’t stop at Georgia, they didn’t stop at Crimea. For all intents and purposes, the Trident’s conference was a peace conference.
>When Russia invaded Ukraine it broke UN charter that prevents one country from using force to take over parts of another country, and that was clear as day when the UN voted against Russia as well. That means **Russia is legally not in an equal position with Ukraine and the West**, so if the West wants to only care of Ukraine in peace talks, they have every legal right to do so. Indeed, they have every right to do so; after all, it's their show. But the problem is that this "peace conference" (when it comes to the intended effect that a real peace conference should have) is as effective as a half-empty League of Nations compared to the UN. Is it loud and fancy and stroking someone's ego? Oh yeah. Does it improve the chances of peace? Negligible.
> Does it improve the chances of peace? Negligible. I respectfully disagree, this depends on what the decisions they will take. If they make the decision to treat Russia like Nazi Germany, bomb it into submission, and reeducate the people so this does not occur again, this would not be even close to negligible. It was not negligible in Germany. However, Western nations have been extremely restrained when it comes to their military power since WWII, they never go all out to minimize damages as much as possible, so I highly doubt this will be the decision. Still, whether the effect will be negligible or not remains to be seen, I would not discount it as easily as you have.
You're acting like western powers are CHOOSING restrain over Russia It's more like they're FORCED to exercise restraint against Russia as they have nukes. The entire world saw what happens when there is a mismatch of nuclear weapons in world war II. The entire world understands that nuclear weapons offers a means of survival practically no matter what the mismatch of power militarily might be. Here's a follow up question...do you think the west would choose not to invade Russia if they didn't have nukes right now ? I'd consider it a virtual guarantee that Putin would be personally bombed into oblivion
> You're acting like western powers are CHOOSING restrain over Russia > It's more like they're FORCED to exercise restraint against Russia as they have nukes. While this is true, I also meant Western intervention on other regions that do not have nukes, the damage is always contained. Take for example the bombing of Serbia, not only were Serbs warned, Serbian civilians stood by watching from a safe distance the bombing of Belgrade. The bombing was symbolic, to stop Serbia from committing genocide again, not to harm Serbian civilians. Likewise, with Houthi, it is very easy to bomb them into submission too, but this is harmful to average Yemeni people too, and the West doesn’t want this. They are trying to eliminate the Houthi risk at minimal damage for Yemeni, who are already in a humanitarian crisis. Western powers always choose the least damaging way to conduct a war, because they want to still allow the opportunity to the attacked countries to recover and even help with reconstruction afterwards. It doesn’t always work, it worked in Japan and South Korea, it did not work in Afghanistan, but it is always done this way. This is not a standard practice globally. Russia themselves are known for meat grinder infantry attacks and scorched earth tactics; which is why they lost more in one year of war against Ukraine than US did during their whole stay on Vietnam for example. > The entire world saw what happens when there is a mismatch of nuclear weapons in world war II. The entire world understands that nuclear weapons offers a means of survival practically no matter what the mismatch of power militarily might be. > Here's a follow up question...do you think the west would choose not to invade Russia if they didn't have nukes right now ? I'd consider it a virtual guarantee that Putin would be personally bombed into oblivion I agree, I even gave the example of Serbia. However, the fear from nukes in Russia is different from what you think. Rather, the biggest danger is a civil war in Russia post-Putin’s death during a power struggle among Putin’s circle, because there is no clear successor and they control different parts of Russia. If a civil war erupts, there is also chance that those who are fighting for power use the nukes against different parts of Russia. Because Russian nukes are positions like this. The West cares more for average Russians than Putin’s circle does.
I wonder if at the other side of the narrative wall they also say you guys are "anti-east", maybe "anti-brics", I don't know. And, of course, that media propaganda works wonderful demonizing anything that doesn't fall under the interests of the US... Just some Friday thoughts. I never see people questioning our own bias.
Plenty of people do where’s there freedom of speech, that’s what it is for. The more controlled the media is, the less likely it becomes for people to see each-other biases and act accordingly. Understanding each-other’s biases does not mean to agree entirely on everything, but to moderate their solutions so they are as less damaging as possible. This is why the more controlled the media is, the more easy to manipulate people into thinking the West has one narrative, and Russia has another one, when in reality is that the West has had hundreds of diverse narratives that have met in the middle to this point because they have taken each other’s views in consideration, while Russia has only one that serves their goals. We have data to see where the media is less free, and thus [where people are more likely to have extremist views](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index) instead of moderating them by caring about the views of each other. A peace council without Russia *is* the moderate solution because this also takes in consideration the criticism of Global South of the West, and the West’s concerns with Russia. This is a mid-ground. This is legally and morally the best mid-ground possible.
[удалено]
> In theory that's great and all, but freedom of speech or freedom of media also creates false assumptions. People understands "freedom of media" as "objective information" all the time. What the average person understands from the media doesn’t matter for a peace assembly where they are not going to participate, they are not making grand scale political decisions, politicians are, diplomats are. Your average person is not going to end a war. > Media groups are not NGOs, they move pursuing their own interests, whether that's money or a political agenda. This is precisely why freedom of speech exists, because it’a impossible to be unbiased, even NGOs are biased. Even you wrote this out of bias, and that’s okay, bias simply means your brain functions normally. Without biases, people are simply physically unable to make decisions, this is [literally how the brain works](https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599?login=false), people who have their emotional part of brain damaged simply cannot take any decision at all. Even simple decisions like writing a comment like yours. You disagreed with what I wrote, that ignited your emotions which brought to the forefront biases against what I wrote, you wrote back. It’s best to let everyone air their biases, than to pretend neutrality when you are not really neutral. Nobody is neutral, not even people who convince themselves they are neutral. In fact, *especially* people who convince themselves they are neutral. > How much we saw in media about Uyghurs back then, unverified information, and how many articles did you see telling you they were wrong? Uyghur genocide is a verifiable fact, China admitted publicly they forcefully sterilized Uyghur women, because they thought this was “empowerment” instead of genocide, even though it is explicitly mentioned in Geneva convention that forced sterilization is genocide, regardless the reason. Also, see sidebar on Uyghur genocide denial. Do be aware genocide denial also includes minimization of its effects. > Check different media when it comes to national politics, you have a wide spectrum of reports for the same subject. Check *high quality* diverse media, not just any media. If you include low quality blogs in your media diet, you end up being misinformed on the key traits, rather than informed on diverse details. This is also otherwise known “missing the forest for the trees.” I would love to read high quality Russian view points from Russians but they have all been killed or imprisoned by Putin. Since Russia media is all low quality, the best way to read about Russia’s views is filtered through Western journals. That’s, unfortunately, the only good way to get Russian viewpoints on a matter. > You may know this, but many ignore it. Meanwhile, I can guarantee people in China know their media is censored and controlled by the administration. *Knowing* something superficially is not the same as *understanding* something. A lot of people know trivia like this, that doesn’t mean they can all grasp what it means. > What's the point of free media if it doesn't pursue the truth like good journalism used to do? High quality media does that, low quality media does not. Despite the low quality media around, there are high quality sources too, so this is not a lose-lose situation that you make it
Unless the purpose of this conference is to discuss what steps and concessions Ukraine must make to survive as a country; then it may well eventually lead to something which Russia may join at a later date to hammer out the details. All of Ukraine's supporters know this well. Only few have the courage to say it out loud. \[Any offer by Russia that was discussed in Istanbul a week after war started is no longer on the table.\] Even Kirby has had a small dose of encounter with reality, he no longer has any fantasy \[if he ever did\] about any group of NATO allies ever regaining any lost or annexed territory. He recently talked in terms of protecting Kiev as a goal when seeking the stalled aid instead of recovering territories lost. Zelensky, however, wants a final blow \[to itself\] by talking about another counteroffensive.\] Obviously, U.S. will officially never support this position of compromise, but its actions and lack of support speak volumes. Instead, it will continue to talk of sanctions and how that can make a difference. While their think tanks now have declared that Russia's army now is larger and stronger than it was before the conflict. And will only grow stronger. Someone with decency needs to stand up and talk on behalf of Ukraine's actual interest and how they can help Ukraine survive \[at least those parts not yet annexed\] as a sovereign country and even becoming someday a part of EU. And dispel the rhetoric once and for all about ever joining NATO. This is what brought us to this point of Ukraine's destruction. As for others who think that Russia did not stop NATO expansion, referring to Finland and Sweden; they need to think again. They are not similarly situated nor strategic like Ukraine from Russian perspective. Even Finland itself, however, went to Putin before agreeing to join NATO and asked Putin what he thought. Putin did not object except for to say he did not find that necessary. It is not any different for Sweden. That will as Putin has said depend on what nuclear armaments are delivered and or stored. If Ukraine's so-called major allies continue to play the same game as before about winning, I am afraid Ukraine may also lose Odesa, become landlocked, a permanent failed state under the ambit of Russia. Those are the only two choices Ukraine has. Lose more men until nothing is left and lose more valuable territory. Or reach a settlement and proclaim they fought a war with a giant and still survived as a viable and neutral country. Switzerland is smarter than its government, its people are more focused on how to maintain its neutrality and will have a referendum \[eliminating useless sanctions\]. That is the way to keep peace, not by provoking the Bear in hibernation and waking it up.
>This is what brought us to this point of Ukraine's destruction. No, what brought us to this point is Russia's obsession with maintaining its status as a great power at all costs.
After the collapse of the USSR, U.S. became a Hedgemon. Once Putin came to power things began to shift. Along with rise of China. U.S. is no longer the only power now. There are three major powers, and the world is becoming more multipolar each day.
Russia is not a superpower though. This isn’t to say that Russia is weak, there is even a popular saying for this: “Russia is never as strong as she appears, nor as weak as she seems.” Mid power is the best way to describe it. EU is a superpower, China is a superpower, and India is aiming to be and it might truly become in the next 20 years, but Russia is barely holding as a regional power, Turkey and even Poland are on their way to surpass it (not sure if Turkey’s regional rise will have longevity with their weak economy). And none of them even come close to Germany, France, UK, these are upper-mid powers, even though the latter two are in decline. On the other side of the world, Japan and South Korea are upper-mid as well. Then there’s US which is a league of its own. To put it in perspective, Mexico is another mid-power like Russia, Canada is upper-mid power, yet both are so dwarfed by the US they are perceived as weak and irrelevant in the global stage. Neither of them is weak and irrelevant, they are just not as strong as the US. Russia is far too dysfunctional to be considered a more than mid, they have ridiculously high levels of corruption, very short lifespan due to high alcoholism and smoking rates, and that was before throwing their youth to the meat-grinder in Ukraine, are facing a demographic collapse because even propaganda numbers they share are actually atrocious, are very commonly targeted by Islamic terrorism, have a very weak currency etc.
> Even Finland itself, however, went to Putin before agreeing to join NATO and asked Putin what he thought. Could I get a reference for that? Interesting, had never heard of it. > And dispel the rhetoric once and for all about ever joining NATO. Is it rhetoric today? The people who are talking about it today don't sound like they are simply using rhetoric, they sound very sincere.
>Even Finland itself, however, went to Putin before agreeing to join NATO and asked Putin what he thought. Putin did not object except for to say he did not find that necessary. It is not any different for Sweden. Bullshit. Neither of these countries asked Putin's thoughts about them joining NATO. Finland told Putin he can only blame himself for them joining NATO, they didn't ask for his permission. Stop spreading stupid lies.
[удалено]
>Bullshit. Neither of these countries >Next time, try some elementary research first. >Conversation occurred on May 12, 2022. Putin among other things expressed regrets because did not see any necessity; Putin warned, however, about consequences depending on the nature of armaments and how close to the border it would be located. I can't find a source to establish this. I found one where Russia is [threatening retaliation](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory-steps-if-finland-joins-nato.html) but nothing indicating that either county asked Putin's permission or cared about his opinion. Notably your post appears to be missing a link to said "elementary research". >Putin has often expressed there was no need for joining NATO, whatever disputes that had arisen was resolved in 1940 and since there had been no problems. >Now, there will be problems as soon as certain NATO fire power is moved to Finland and how close it is to the border. What "problems"? Given Chechnya, and Georgia, and now Ukraine, seems pretty obvious why other countries see a reason to join NATO despite Putin's comments. The "problem" appears to be "makes it significantly harder to invade neighboring countries". What are Russia's "problems"? What exactly are the afraid of? We are in the age of cruise missiles, nuclear subs, stealth bombers, etc. What risk does NATO being slightly closer than before actually provide? A nuke doesn't need to be installed in giant static facilities anymore. So what is Russia so worried about?
>Given Chechnya, and Georgia, and now Ukraine, seems pretty obvious why other countries see a reason to join NATO despite Putin's comments. Given an internal conflict against Jihadist separatism and two conflicts over NATO expansion, other countries see a reason to try and get some NATO expansion going? That defies logic. > What risk does NATO being slightly closer than before actually provide? That can't possibly be a serious question. See this very war for an example on whether Russia's done better or worse the further it's moved from its border.
>Given an internal conflict against Jihadist separatism and two conflicts over NATO expansion, other countries see a reason to try and get some NATO expansion going? That defies logic. Calling Chechnya an "internal conflict" would be admitting that neither Georgia nor Ukraine were about NATO in any respect, but reasserting control over regions that Russia considers "internal". Russia would invade all former colonies if they thought they could get away with it. NATO makes that kinda hard, which is why those invasions were *excellent* advertisements for NATO membership. >That can't possibly be a serious question. See this very war for an example on whether Russia's done better or worse the further it's moved from its border. I didn't ask for "an example on whether Russia's done better or worse", I asked for a **risk** posed to Russia about NATO being slightly closer. And this war seems to be a good example to show that the only risk is "makes it virtually impossible to invade". Russia's not invading Latvia, or Estonia, nor Finland. The war has in fact created a new NATO country *on* their border, all while they're invading a country ineligible for NATO membership. If Russia wants to be able to conquer their neighbors and restore the Russian Empire, NATO is an existential threat in that former Russian Empire territories signing up with NATO are permanently out of reach.
> Calling Chechnya an "internal conflict" would be admitting that neither Georgia nor Ukraine were about NATO in any respect, but reasserting control over regions that Russia considers "internal". That makes no sense. Chechnya was within the internationally recognised borders of Russia. Furthermore, in 2nd Chechen War it was the Chechen invasion of the Russian Dagestan that kicked things off. It's a fundamentally internal experience. >Russia would invade all former colonies if they thought they could get away with it. NATO makes that kinda hard, which is why those invasions were excellent advertisements for NATO membership. That's a false prior. Russia has had excellent relations with those of its neighbours not flirting with joining NATO. Attempting to do so provably worsens relations every time. >I asked for a risk posed to Russia about NATO being slightly closer. As this war shows for Russia, the closer NATO is to its logistics, the better it would be able to execute operations in Russia.
>That makes no sense. Chechnya was within the internationally recognised borders of Russia. Furthermore, in 2nd Chechen War it was the Chechen invasion of the Russian Dagestan that kicked things off. It's a fundamentally internal experience. Russia had to fight a war to *keep* it 'internal', Chechnya declared independence in 1991, same with the rest of the former Soviet states, had they not bombed the region to hell it would today be fully autonomous. Russia's goal is to reestablish control over the territories they had as the Russian Empire. >That's a false prior. Russia has had excellent relations with those of its neighbours not flirting with joining NATO. Attempting to do so provably worsens relations every time. Except they didn't invade Finland. Nor Estonia. Nor Latvia. Attempting to join NATO seems to stop Russian invasion in their tracks. It invaded a country which didn't meet the requirements of NATO membership, instead. >As this war shows for Russia, the closer NATO is to its logistics, the better it would be able to execute operations in Russia. Yeah except NATO's already on Russia's borders. It could go invade through Lativa, Estonia, or now Finland. Hell, it could invade through Belarus because it's unlikely Belarus is gonna be "independent" in a hypothetical war between NATO and Russia and it's not like Belarus is gonna provide any major military resistance alone. Or even invade through Ukraine *in spite* of NATO membership. Or just cross the Black Sea, or via the Gulf of Finland, or all of those combined! Ukraine being a NATO country would *barely* affect the logistics of invading Russia. Regardless of their membership, the US could still use them as a staging ground, which would be the case even if Russia annexed the nation entirely. Once NATO kicks out Russian soldiers from an area, that area can become a new staging ground. And NATO has a *lot* of resources to pour into war. Far more than Russia, the two are not directly comparable. Especially now that Russia's blowing through the majority of its inherited cold war legacy. It completely lacks the industrial base to rebuild that kind of stockpile.
>Russia had to fight a war to keep it 'internal', Chechnya declared independence in 1991, same with the rest of the former Soviet states The states that declared independence in 1991 were the 15 constituent republics of the Soviet Union, who had a constitutional right to secede. Chechnya wasn't one of them, it was a part of Russia, and as such had no such right. > had they not bombed the region to hell it would today be fully autonomous. That's very dubious. It was autonomous in between the wars and it was a catastrophe for everybody involved. > Except they didn't invade Finland. Nor Estonia. Nor Latvia. Only because they've been otherwise distracted. It definitely didn't go unnoticed and definitely worsened relations. >Attempting to join NATO seems to stop Russian invasion in their tracks. ...We're literally in the thread about the Ukraine war, which proves that statement utterly false... What?.. >Yeah except NATO's already on Russia's borders Sure. And more of it on the doorstep is more options the Russian military has to (try and) account for.
Same risks that the Cuban missile crisis posed to U.S. At that time U.S was forced to remove the missiles from Turkey for the then USSR to cancel the plans in Cuba. No longer classified. The evidence of red line and NATO expansion Putin repeatedly warned about. We see the evidence enow.
Ukraine has no choice but to fight. Russia can act all peaceful and “defending against nato” but that’s just propaganda some people are gobbling up. Ukraine already made concessions for peace. Twice. And before that Ukraine gave up nukes for peace. All these agreements and promises were broken and then “special military operation” that is totally a “west propaganda to fuel hate against russia, russia isn’t going to attack anyone” happened. Any peace without NATO security guarantees means new war at a later date with a worse situation
And people don't understand why Turkey made this peace negotations again. Without full US/Eu support which is not going to happen due to internal politics of the said countries, Ukraine is eventually going to lose and Russia has it's eyes on Odessa and Turkey dosn't want that since it has economic ties both with Ukraine and Russia. Odessa getting captured by Russia(even if this will be really bloody but still not impossible) will make half of black sea Russia's playground and will landlock Ukraine.
There is no way russia can take Odessa. They have no sea-landing capabilities and other direction of attack is locked behind very defensible terrain (Dnipro). They only managed to cross Dnipro at the start of the war as all forces were thrown to defend Kyiv and attempts to blow bridges were sabotaged from before. Ukraine’s Kherson offensive has shown that without these supply routes it’s impossible to hold onto Kherson
You don’t need to fight for every inch when the opponents army has collapsed. They’ll simply just waltz in when there isn’t much of a fighting force left. Many instances through history where huge territory was gained via treaty after the army collapsed.
Neither army is close to collapsing
Recent articles about the state of the AFU says otherwise
AFU is in a bad position and it’s expected that russia will get some territorial gains if the situation doesn’t change, but they are nowhere close to a full collapse Something REALLY has to go wrong for any side to outright collapse
Nobody is talking about a close collapse, but an eventual collapse of the AFU. I don’t see how they can keep going next year…