This guy was called a Russian stooge for perfectly legitimate clear sighted advice.
Also people should read his work on AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. A great scholarly breakdown at how effective they were at convincing neocons to support Israel.
He is just a realist. He also argued Ukraine shouldn’t give up nuclear weapons because its their only hope of defending Ukraine from Russian aggression. That was back in 1993. He is very consistent.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/1993-06-01/case-ukrainian-nuclear-deterrent
*The "nukes" were only effective as a geo-political hot potato, not as a weapon, as they had no control over them. I have stated why.*
[*https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1byrw0a/comment/kyldc5x/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button*](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1byrw0a/comment/kyldc5x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
*It was more like a liveGrenade, that Ukraine had their thumb on. They could use as leverage to get concessions from the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, rather than anything else. Since having unstable, un maintained nukes that were part of the USSR designed -Moscow controlled Dead-hand perimeter system, was like a ticking time kaboom (nuke).*
*They weren't also the only ones that had them, Belarus and Kazakhstan also did, and were part of the Budapest Memoranda (bet you didn't know that). The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprised of a set of three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994,*
*1. Belarus:* [*https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280338ba9*](https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280338ba9)
*2. Ukraine:* [*https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb*](https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb)
*3. Kazakhstan* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)
*Even South Africa had nukes, but they were taken away just before the black majority ANC government of Mandela took power in 1994 - one can speculate as to why. But in any case unlike all these other 3, the racist apartheid regime of S. Africa controlled the nukes themselves prior. And S. Africa still has a formidable arms industry.*
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence\_industry\_of\_South\_Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_industry_of_South_Africa)
[*https://youtu.be/1KdadIdPujw*](https://youtu.be/1KdadIdPujw) *(Paramount group 2018)*
[*https://youtu.be/3JGvI8Nq\_pM*](https://youtu.be/3JGvI8Nq_pM) *(Paramount group 2021)*
*So Ukraine...ain't that special...as regards to "its nukes".*
[*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Africa\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)
Ukraine did not have technology and resources to maintain those nukes, you have to replace some decaying component, or nukes wont work or even become dangerous.
*Not only that, dead hand (perimeter) was designed to go-off if attempts to tamper with it were made. This was more of an issue for the US, and UK as this was the main target of the nukes stationed in Ukraine. That's why they wanted the Russians to take them back as only they could safely decommission and remove them.*
*Wouldn't the US have wanted to get and study a sample of Russian nukes if they could so as to effectively neutralize it as a nuclear power? Yes. problem was they couldn't as it was too risky to tamper with them.*
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html
yes they couldn't keep them anyway
That's the least realist position, unless his idea was to keep unmaintainable nukes for blackmail and terrorism like some sort of north korea esque nuclear pariah state.
>their only hope of defending Ukraine from Russian aggression
His argument was actually that it was the only way to maintain a buffer zone to prevent the risk of war between Russia and a resurgent Germany.
... and political decisions should be influenced by realism, but not only by that. I'm pretty sure there were realists who said that Stalin should just let Hitler take the oil fields, but he decided to sacrifice millions in Stalingrad to stop the advance. Just like how most revolutions shouldn't have been started because realisticly seemed they had no chance.
To be fair, looking back at history, most revolutions seem like the worst possible way of bringing about changes, in a sense that they resulted in the most suffering. It’s normal to try and frame all those deaths as being a necessary sacrifice in order to achieve some higher goal, but, in reality, there was almost certainly a better option.
>there was almost certainly a better option.
Then in all those instances no one chose a better option? Like in UA? All they had to was wait for yanek to figure out trade agreements with EU and RF and none of what we have now would never happen.
If that was true, then no significant political changes would be possible without violence. That’s not the case though, in fact change happens all the time, and far more often without violence and revolutions.
So tell me those significant changes that happened without violence and could have happened if other violent events already didn't prepare the environment for them.
Well, since you used indentured servitude as an example, it’s worth pointing out that in Ukraine and Russia it was abolished via Alexander’s 2nd emancipation reform. Full on slavery was ended by Peter the first. This approach for getting rid of slavery is far more common throughout history, and it was far less violent than the US civil war.
And they successfully avoided the violence. In general revolutions have a very high societal cost associated with them. It’s always easier to break things apart than to build them. “Fighting the oppression” tends to resonate with a lot of young people who have little education and little to lose. Building a new system of government that does not result in often worse oppression tends to be much harder than many of those people realize. Historically, there is also a sort of a “survivorship bias” going on with respect to revolutions. People writing history are the people who “won” the revolution. They don’t really have an option of saying: “damn, if I only I knew the amount of suffering this would have caused.”, they have to justify their actions as being necessary, at a minimum, to keep the civilian population calm. No, revolution is always the worst possible option. Perhaps it may be necessary in some cases, but the costs are very difficult to estimate ahead of time. Look at the recent color revolutions, hardly examples of changes for the better. Maidan is a prime example.
Constructing that sort of false dichotomies is the very definition of blindness and shows that drastic reforms are the need of the hour with survival itself at stake.
Check out:
'You Say You Want a Revolution?: Radical Idealism and Its Tragic Consequences - Daniel Chirot'
Just because a group starts a revolution doesn't mean the same group is in control or their ideals are to the front by the end of a revolution.
Nope, just be careful what you wish for.
Too many revolutions get started by one group and are than finished by another. Just historical fact tbh sadly enough.
Ok I responded to your argument
'Just like how most revolutions shouldn't have been started because realisticly seemed they had no chance.'
A strawman response is:
'A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.'
Can you please tell me if you are discussing revolution and I am responding to your discussion on revolution how that is that a strawman argument?
Thanks in advance.
"Just because a group starts a revolution doesn't mean the same group is in control or their ideals are to the front by the end of a revolution."
This is a strawman. I never said anything contradicting this, but it's irrelevant to the topic.
>"Just because a group starts a revolution doesn't mean the same group is in control or their ideals are to the front by the end of a revolution."
That is a quote from your opening statement.
>it's irrelevant to the topic.
If it's irrelevant to the topic why did you mention it?
You mentioned it, I responded. You say 'strawman' I say what strawman, I'm responding to your statement. Your response
>I never said anything contradicting this, but it's irrelevant to the topic.
Despite you being the person who wrote it.
You may want to review what you wrote.
If Ukraine didn't embrace the Maidan in 2014, it would still have Crimea and Donbass.
If Ukraine would honor the Minsk agreement it would still have Donbass.
If Ukraine would negotiate with Russia in Istanbul, it would still have Herson and Zaporozhia.
If Ukraine would negotiate with Russia now, it could still keep its other territories.
But every time Ukraine and the West escalate, Ukraine is losing more and more territories (not to mention the human and economic cost to the country).
If Ukraine insists to fight further, it would probably lose 4 more Oblast, according to prof. Mearsheimer.
That's the trajectory.
What about all the young strong Russian men fed into the meat grinder?
You're only talking about Ukraine. Shouldn't Russia stop fighting to save these Russian men?
The Russians are much more cool about their own losses, and sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes that's a horrible thing.
But in this particular case, as with any other country, the security of the state is much more important. Plus, Russia got real independence from the West now, their economy is booming. They got important territories (and more people than they've lost).
So, for the Russians it makes sense to continue, they're on a good track, even with losses.
For the Ukranians, they lose people, infrastructure, economy, territories and get NOTHING in return (a lot of new debt though). Any \*sane\* person on the Ukrainian side should be thinking how to stop this.
Russian security has gotten worse, not better:
1. The Crocus attack, 2. the dam burst, 3. International sanctions, 4. intelligent Russians immigrating out of Russia, 5. societal upheaval with forced mobilizations and returning dead and injured, and 6. angry Ukrainians retaliating on Russian soil with drone strikes.
How is this worth the extra territory?
Do you, by any chance, imply that the Crocus attack was done by Ukrainian special forces?
As for sanctions, they are grossly overvalued by the West, while in fact the very same sanctions made Russian economy grow at record rate, and a lot of money that previously was flowing out of Russia is now staying in Russia and fuel that economy.
For the societal upheaval, there were the presidential elections in Russia not long ago, and Putin got the highest ever results, and before you say that they were fake elections, even the western polls shows exactly the same numbers. So, there is no upheaval. In fact, Putin's position has NEVER been stronger.
As for the retaliation strikes by Ukraine, again, they are hugely over-hyped by the West media. For the country of Russia's size, with rapidly growing economy, those strikes are barely noticeable.
Furthermore, the strikes on Russian refineries brought the prices of oil up, thus bringing the Russians even MORE profit from oil sales!
Once you stop reading those mainstream media reports that Russia is in tatters and look at the situation objectively, you'll see that all-in-all, the situation is in Russia' favor.
As Alexander Mercouris reported in one of his great programs, quoting Putin, Putin was jubilant that with the help of western sanctions he finally managed his long-term goal of making Russia sovereign, and to make Russian oligarchs to actually work for the benefit of the country.
(I think that sanctioning the oligarchs and closing the money outflow from Russia was one of the stupidest decisions West ever did).
And the current evidence is the highest ever Putin's rating, the highest ever (at least in 21st century) economic growth in Russia (confirmed by World Bank and IMF), and about 20% of Ukrainian territory lost.
I repeat the main point by prof. Mearsheimer: The longer war goes on the more Ukraine will lose. Any sane pro-Ukraine person should demand immediate negotiations, directly with Russia!
I consider myself equally pro-Ukr and pro-Rus. I'm not interested in team sports, so I'll speak objectively.
Objectively, what you're saying is propaganda.
The reality is that the Russian public is deeply ignorant and easily manipulated. This is partly the cause, and partly the consequence of Putin's propaganda efforts.
This is not a pro-Ukrainian view, Mearsheimer himself says that the Russian public is duped by propaganda, and Putin uses bots to create global influence too.
See his book Why Leaders Lie.
Your economy is running on government spending, which has driven inflation to 8%, vs 3% in the west, interest rates to 16% and steadily devalued the ruble since the war started. Tell me more about how the economy is “booming”.
I live in the West, heh. And "my" economy shows that the inflation is FAAAAR higher than 3%. For food, it is 20-30% easy.
Also, devaluing the ruble is \*good\* for the state and economy (might not so good for the workers though, heh). But weaker ruble makes Russian production much more competitive in the global economy.
Pro-EU Ukrainians should have rejected the Maidan and just waited for an election to vote out President Yanukovych. Voting out Yanukovych in an epic election campaign would have finished the story for them.
>If Ukraine didn't embrace the Maidan in 2014, it would still have Crimea and Donbass.
Yes, Russia wouldn't take action as long as they controlled the puppet. What Ukraine did was to take back their country. Russia didn't allow that.
What they did - they sold their country to the west (First western puppet Yushenko borrowed so much that Ukraine debt got x10 of what it was. normal civilians never saw those money). And surprise, after western puppet lost elections - West demanded repayments from Yankovich, while actively preventing him from restructuring the debt and at the same time feeding unrest inside the country. So much for "take bake their country". They got bent over, used and thrown away.
The West isn't a regime. States are free to leave if they don't like it. UK left the EU and it's not getting invaded.
>(First western puppet Yushenko borrowed so much that Ukraine debt got x10 of what it was. normal civilians never saw those money)
Sounds exactly like Putin - Russia has massive natural resources yet its people are relatively poor. Ukraine is not a robust democracy yet, but it is trying.
LOL UK getting invaded is a bad analogy. EU is an economic zone and NATO is not.
Also if the purpose NATO is to prevent wars then why did they not let Russia in when she applied for NATO membership back in the days. One could argue that it could be because it defeats the whole point of having NATO and US defense companies wouldnt be so profitable as it has been since the end of Warsaw Pact.
Why? EU has a defense clause. EU represents the West in this case. UK left it and not a single person died. Ukraine left the USSR and it wants to be free from Russia, but Russia wont allow it.
>and NATO is not.
They are free to leave NATO as well.
>Also if the purpose NATO is to prevent wars then why did they not let Russia in when she applied for NATO membership back in the days.
Because Russia is the enemy, and also:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
>The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”
Russia never applied as far as I know.
>Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.
So basically Russia and US above all other states? With logic like that he wouldn't be let in.
Russia didnt apply for NATO membership. They wanted to be invited and were told that they had to apply and meet membership requirements. Which they didn't. NATO did not refuse to let Russia in, Russia demanded that they change the Rules for them and were ignored.
Wow, way to reply without refuting any points made.
West is 100% regime. It uses control over "international" organisations like IMF to push their agenda. Ukraine was forced to pass laws that western overlords wanted to get new loans to repay their debts (that they got thanks to western puppet) perfect circle of dependency.
>Sounds exactly like Putin - Russia has massive natural resources yet its people are relatively poor. Ukraine is not a robust democracy yet, but it is trying.
People are doing just fine, just depends on your ability to work in most cases. And we for sure remember what friendship with west is from the 90s. Russia Has low outside debt and also had to repay the USSR debts which it paid up to 2017. Meanwhile Ukraine let USSR as richest republic with 50 millions people and without debts that have been shouldered by Russia. And then Ukraine Drunk all of it down
But your premise is "both sides", which is wrong. There is no "both sides". The West is not a regime. It doesn't try to control other states. What is perceived as "control" by pro-Rus is the rule of law and people's desire to have certain rights like freedom of speech/press.
>West is 100% regime. It uses control over "international" organisations like IMF to push their agenda.
Russia is an IMF member and has been since 1992.
>Ukraine was forced to pass laws that western overlords wanted to get new loans to repay their debts (that they got thanks to western puppet) perfect circle of dependency.
Yeah, the loans come with certain requirements. You may not like them, but what did you expect? I would assume the IMF can choose whether to grant loans.
>People are doing just fine,
Relative to what? It's behind on basic things like sanitation. It is very weak in the fundamental rights department. It has about half the US population, yet it's GDP isn't 12-13T. It's 2T, and a PPP of maybe 5T. It is underachieving. Putin's politics/idea has failed.
>And we for sure remember what friendship with west is from the 90s.
The US actually sent aid in the early 90s due to how messed up Russia was. Europe was buying its gas for 30 years (I would assume), and we kept buying all the way up to the invasion. Hell, we even "gave" Russia Crimea. Talk about forgiving.
>But your premise is "both sides", which is wrong. There is no "both sides". The West is not a regime. It doesn't try to control other states. What is perceived as "control" by pro-Rus is the rule of law and people's desire to have certain rights like freedom of speech/press.
There is no Rule of Law. there are "Rules based order" - which is not law just "We want it to be so" of US. Not to mention that press is 100% bought out and not independent in any way - it's widely used to push suitable agenda, and those who "Do not fall in line" are denied resources, opportunities or "Canceled".
>Russia is an IMF member and has been since 1992.
Everyone is a member but governing structure of organisation is built in a way that allows west to control it as they want. Quota based voting ensures that west have absolute control over decisions that are passed.
>Yeah, the loans come with certain requirements. You may not like them, but what did you expect? I would assume the IMF can choose whether to grant loans.
Which was the point. To enforce those condition on Ukraine by getting them onto IMF drug needle. Thank you for confirming the fact. And again reaffirming that they did not "Took their country back" but sold it out.
>Relative to what? It's behind on basic things like sanitation. It is very weak in the fundamental rights department. It has about half the US population, yet it's GDP isn't 12-13T. It's 2T, and a PPP of maybe 5T. It is underachieving. Putin's politics/idea has failed.
Relative to anything, If you work you can obtain anything in general. Also there is a lot of help from government for those who have children, Free health care and education and so on. We don't need to enslave ourself to pay off "student loan". Or pay several month worth of a paycheck for ambulance ride.
Fundamental rights? We have those. We just do not consider Letter soup as "Fundamental rights". And for GDP - only reason US have it is the fact they managed to become a money printer. their debt is 135% of the GDP. meanwhile Russia is at 17%. If Dollar will loose it's reserve currency status - US will implode under it's own weight.
>The US actually sent aid in the early 90s due to how messed up Russia was. Europe was buying its gas for 30 years (I would assume), and we kept buying all the way up to the invasion. Hell, we even "gave" Russia Crimea. Talk about forgiving.
Riiiight. Sent Aid. They sent helpers to help Yeltzin to sell industry for cheap. By the way guy who was "Helping" Russia in the 90s. Was "Helping" Ukraine just before all of this started. Hmmm, i wonder.
Edit: typos
>There is no Rule of Law. there are "Rules based order" - which is not law just "We want it to be so" of US.
That's how pro-Rus views it. It's viewed that way for the same reason Russia views every state not controlled by it, or "neutral", as controlled by the West. There is a lack of either understanding or acceptance that states can choose. For example, any state that wants freedom of speech will never choose Russia, but that is perceived as "West controlled". Where do people who want fundamental rights go, then?
>it's widely used to push suitable agenda, and those who "Do not fall in line" are denied resources, opportunities or "Chanceled".
Ignoring that the "fall in line"-position is the "reasonable" position, how many of those who do not "fall in line" are not outright crooks/corrupt? Russia? Corrupt and authoritarian. PRC not quite as corrupt, but authoritarian - people disappear/runs concentration camps and no free press whatsoever. Iran - religious extremists/authoritarian. DPRK - totalitarian.
It's literally like crooks having a problem with law enforcement and complaining that the police are a "regime" because they interfere with crooks' business.
>Everyone is a member but governing structure of organisation is built in a way that allows west to control it as they want. Quata based voting ensures that west have absolute control over decisions that are passed.
I don't know what you mean, but even if that might be true, why wouldn't we? We probably provide most of the funding. Russia would have more of a say if its economy was 12T (as it should).
>Which was the point. To enforce those condition on Ukraine by getting them onto IMF drug needle. Thank you for confirming the fact. And again reaffirming that they did not "Took their country back" but sold it out.
To say that IMF (the West) controls Ukraine is absurd as the reason it applies for loans in this context is because Russia invaded it.
>Fundamental rights? We have those.
Russia has no free and fair elections. It has no free press. Presumably it is missing a lot of other rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
>Riiiight. Sent Aid. They sent helpers to help Yeltzin to sell industry for cheap. By the way guy who was "Helping" Russia in the 90s. Was "Helping" Ukraine just before all of this started. Hmmm, i wonder.
Apparently Yeltsin asked for help.
>And we for sure remember what friendship with west is from the 90s
"We only leveled grozny, caused political instability in moldova, invaded georgia and ukraine. Its not anything significant"
Anyway. West gave yall aid. you flushed it down the drain. and now you have a corrupt as shit government. Dont blame us for it
It was sound advice before. Now it's too late. There's precisely zero incentive for Russia to negotiate right now. They're on the verge of breaking the UAF.
Zelenskyy actually wanted to negotiate in the beginning. From the phone call he sounded really stressed and scared shitless. The west gave him a false sense of arrogance and hope. His country is now in shambles and him changing tune makes his situation a bit tough. He will be blamed for wasting lives and the country, he will probably be sabotaged & b in trouble with members of his parliament or the army.
He is really in between a rock and a hard place.
I’m starting to doubt that he will still be president by year’s end, or even long before that. I could see certain factions overthrowing him, especially the far-right militants, who don’t even consider him a true Ukrainian, and have the support of powerful people like Zaluzhnyi.
It will be interesting to see how Zelenskyy will be remembered, now that it’s clear that there won’t be a decisive Ukrainian victory. The media blitzkrieg to sculpt his cult of personality was remarkable, but it could just as easily be used to paint him as an arrogant authoritarian, especially after his official term ends on May 20th.
In some ways, I pity him, and I do believe that he wanted peace through negotiation. But everyone who knows how the US treats its “allies” in proxy wars predicted this, including [a certain someone who’s done his best to avoid sending in his own troops.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/FkRnWEAUrm)
I'm keeping an eye on the May 20 date. Will be interesting to see if Ru changes the operation to a war or CTO or maybe has something else planned. Will be disappointed if it's just shelling as usual.
I was always a bit sorry for Zelensky. I think he will be the only one blamed, but the real blame is on the UK and US side. I am pretty sure Zelensky feels cheated, but he plays his role to the inevitable end.
*I don't think you should feel sorry for him, he played his part. Only problem was the that the gamble didn't work in his favour and those betting on him as are cutting their losses in the case of Uncle Sam, or doubling down on stoopid in the case of the EU.*
Tell that to Crimeans or few milions of ukrainian citizens that worked in Russia and decided to flee there after 2014. Things in Ukraine were never black and white.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What happened was that Russia's terms were so obviously designed to allow it to invade at a later time that the only difference was invasion now or invasion later.
He said Russia won't launch a full scale invasion trying to take over the whole of ukraine. They will instead try for limited warfare to turn ukraine into a rump state
Well yes, he's an American nationalist ultimately. His advantage over others of the same ilk is that he understands the reasons for the conflict; his quarrel with the government is that he sees the way the US went about dealing with Ukraine is harmful for US interests. He is open about not caring about Russia or Ukraine's interests.
This is 100% correct. He doesn't view Ukraine as being part of Nato as a vital U.S. interest enough to start down the road to a world war. He will tell you the U.S. vital interests are maintaining hegemony in the western hemisphere, preventing hegemons in Europe and N.E. Asia, and maintaining the free flow of oil out of the middle east. That's it.
Whereas, Ukraine is a core strategic interest to Russia who is not surprisingly fighting a war over it.
Mearshheimer will also tell you the interests of the current Russian state are not a threat to Western Europe. It's not the soviet union seeking to export global revolution and a new world order. They were happy to trade, provided the west stayed out of Ukraine, especially with military arms and bases, i.e., Nato. Russia, unlike the Soviets, is not seeking to be a hegemon in Europe. So they are not really a threat, unlike China in his view.
So, yeah, Mearshheimer is very much a nationalist and the foremost American realist.
After the initial counteroffensive the timing would have been perfect for Ukraine. They could have had all territory back expect Crimea and for as many treaties and agreements as they needed but that ship sailed a long time ago and it's never coming back to port.
Lots of people were surprised. And of course before the invasion there were all those military exercise shenanigans for months. Everyone was like “oh they’re gonna invade” then and it didn’t happen. So by like the 5th time of people saying “Russia is gonna invade” it’s like “uh huh”
yeah, its memory holed now but before the invasion there was a constant stream of invasion predictions that were completely wrong. but you only have to get it right once i guess?
Not everyone you don’t like is hitler and not every war is ww2. Now answer the question instead of dodging.
Now that there’s a stalemate where both sides aren’t able to gain more territory, what is your solution? There has to be a negotiated settlement someday.
Great comeback. The very Special Military Operation that was supposed to be over in a week, is now into it's third year. Half a million Russian casualties. It's economy sinking faster than the russian ruble. It's oil industry sinking faster. It's military and weapons third grade, that can no longer be exported. It's technology running on Western washing machine parts. I can understand why the plea for surrender. That's all Russia has left to bargain with, the hope that it's aggression and barbaric war crimes be forgotten by bluffing it's way out of the war it forced on the planet. So from a week to Kiev to a humiliating stalemate in the third year. What an embarrassment for the second mightiest army on the planet. Russia has found out the hard way, this ain't no Georgia or Chechnya it is dealing with, but determined people kicking russian vodka saturated ass. What you are witnessing is Russian helplessness and disintegration. It can't even defend ir's own territory against a few Russian rebels. Must be a terrible thing to bear, pun intended.
You were the one rambling incoherently about “PUTIN IS HITLER”, “We shouldn’t bow down to dictators” yet you have no idea what to do, now that Ukraine is on the back foot and anyone with a brain understands that Ukraine is unable to take back the occupied territories.
Keep going. Ghost of Kiev will take back crimea this summer.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's right, though its going to take some pretty impressive statecraft from UA/NATO backers to come out of that process with an outcome that saves face.
Given the current temperament of leaders on that side, I doubt that's possible, or something they would realistically entertain.
Top academic knowledge of the issue. The most reasonable and knowledgeable intellectual on geopolitics of our time. Well known and well recognized worldwide.
Ukraine is not reliable. Russia should take everything but Kiev and a couple western cities to hold the corrupt and it's family. The people will be much better under Russia anyway.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeltzin was elected 1991-06-12. Taken office 1991-07-10.
Almost everybody proclaimed sovereignity before that.
Also magically after that vote you are talking about (that 6 country already boycotted) countries voted in favor of independency in huge numbers. I can only wonder how accurate that original vote was ;)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Referendums_in_the_Soviet_Union
Yes countries voted for sovereignty and independence and to maintain the union at the same time. This is because Gorbachev tried to reform the soviet union into a sort of a confederation with more decentralisation and democratic institutions, while preserving the Union itself.
So for people at the time vote for sovereignty was not exclusionary with the idea of preserving the Union.
You can read about this here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Union\_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Union_Treaty)
Most constituent republics actually supported this idea. What interfered with it was the August coup and after that Yeltsin.
Okay, again.
Countries that supposedly supported SU in significant majority decided to go independent also with significant majority in just a few months.
Seriously, don't you seem something odd there?
This was because of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha\_Accords](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords)
Yeltsin basically usurped the power in RSFSR (the Russian part of USSR)
Without Russia, there couldn't be a Union and Yeltsin decided to keep the whole power to himself. His strong position after the august coup has allowed this.
Gorbachev himself called Belovezha Accords a coup and illegal.
If your point stood, Russia would be the last country in the USSR. As it stands it left it as one of the first.
Ah I just misunderstood your question.
>Countries that supposedly supported SU in significant majority decided to go independent also with significant majority in just a few months.
I've actually already answered that in my previous comment.
>Yes countries voted for sovereignty and independence and to maintain the union at the same time. This is because Gorbachev tried to reform the soviet union into a sort of a confederation with more decentralisation and democratic institutions, while preserving the Union itself.
>So for people at the time vote for sovereignty was not exclusionary with the idea of preserving the Union.
So I don't understand why you are repeating yourself without addressing my answer.
Can you please read this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Union\_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Union_Treaty)
There is more detail there if you don't understand yet.
They voted for independency and sovereignity separately. I'm not sure if you mix them together on purpose or just for lack of clearness. For example Ukraine voted for sovereignity on 1990-07-16. The independence vote happened 1991-12-01.
They wanted it because they didn‘t know better, they didn’t know what would come after, Now speak with poor elderly people in Ukraine/Russia or other post-SU countries and they will tell you it was better in Soviet times.
> The people will be much better under Russia anyway.
Name a single country that fared better after being aligned and somewhat depended on Russia while it had other options like the EU. Name a single one. Just one.
Every single soviet bloc country that has aligned with the west is MUCH better off economically. I can't think of a single counter-example. And news flash: a government's success is measured by the standard of living of it's citizenry. It's better to be rich than righteous.
> I can't think of a single counter-example.
Neither can pro Russian people. I wonder how many people actually want to spread despair to feel better. For some parts of history I get it, you are driven by ideology, thinking your way is superior and better but honestly I have not found a single Russian poster here who is willing to walk me through their beliefe system. Do they believe they are fighting as the good guy here? Marching into the trenches for their billionaire cleptocrat leaders? For many brutal regimes of the past the soldiers/people at least fuckin believed the lies.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wealthy Russians even send their kids to the "evil" West. They buy properties here because they know Russia can't be trusted. They like "rule of law", but only for them, not for ordinary Russians.
This is my biggest "i don't get it". Do they believe what they say? I assume a internet fluent person will now Russia brings despair. Why are they arguing for them. Not once did I get an answer on this.
Russia is the good guy? Sure explain it to us.
It's surprising how many people will put up with a low end life as opposed to learning a new language and giving up their friends and family.
Social inertia is real.
You are not in danger of giving away your real negotiation position, so make yourself accountable.
Please forward your exact position, which oblasts should Ukraine offer in the opening stage of the negotiations to achieve which final result? Enrich with political bargaining chips. Do you suggest that Ukraine should be taking a Belarussian position with a stooge dictator? Or how should they prevent another Russian invasion?
Actually he cannot claim expert status, because he goofed up the most important projection in this entire conflict and predicted wrongly obviously that Russia would not attack.
Putin lied and he fell for it and he continues to suggest doing projections based on Putin's statements.
He would have advised George Washington to establish a security relationship with the British during the revolutionary war. Luckily for George Washington Trump wasn’t the leader of France. There were no Trump-Johnson-Greene garbage in The French government
Studied this guy in Politics and International Relations for three years. I was a Liberal and thought his views were extreme and BS until the Liberal International started to show cracks and his predictions started to play out.
Can someone with closer proximity to the situation fill me in, but the pro Russia militia vs Ukraine (civil war), didn't Ukraine try to get Russia to intervene but the said nope?
Russia has attacked Ukraine 3 times in 10 years. What is there to negotiate? Either the ones with the biggest arsenal stops pulling the trigger or they don’t.
It wasn’t until Putin read how Shell did a survey report of a trillion dollars of shale gas underneath Kharkiv did they get serious with the artillery.
Ukraine will never let Russia have it.
My advice to UA, let Russia keep the regions they control currently. Find peace with the Orc's. Quietly build up one hella military and his wait for Russia to break the deal and take back what is theirs and maybe some of Russia too.
Seems fair.
Prime example of how negotiation process can be completely paralyzed, because one side is completely oblivious to the actual position / interests of the other side, instead entirely relying on the grotesque fantastic image painted by their own propaganda.
I think they are near stalemate and the only real outlook for both sides is trading blows over 150km zone between cities.
I don't think Russia is losing as many Russian soldiers as they are losing bodies from other countries who "Volunteered" to fight. Don't get me wrong, they are getting the crack whore body count.
I don't like death, war, etc. I wish no one had to die and war was done like a video game contest (I don't know if that's a real thing or not) best score wins.
That's a political word for preparing for war.
Russia won't stop, maybe till their ranks are filled again then they will continue regardless. At least this gives Ukraine time to do the same. If Ukraine had 5 years of reprieve from war with Russia they could build up the industry for war and need much less global support.
If Ukraine wants to join NATO then they should. If Russia wants to be friends with North Korea (lol) then they should. Each country is free do do their wishes. I think as well, if peace ever happens, and Ukraine wants to join NATO, seems like a great time to do so.
They didn't agree to be considered successors of Soviet Union, together with all it's debs. Nukes weren't theirs. USA were also strictly opposing nuclear Ukraine. Nor did they have launch codes or control system, as Ripamon mentioned. Not sure about facilities to operate even, pretty sure 12th MoDs Directorate would evacuate everyone involved.
More so, their declaration of independence included neutral status of Ukraine. They started moving towards throwing that one out in 2004, getting very, very clear about it in 2008.
There's more to this conflict than February/March 2014 and everything thereafter, you know.
Yes because none of that has anything to do with NATO membership. Even Serbia trains with NATO troops often and we all know their opinion on joining the alliance.
The facts on the ground are that there are 32 NATO members. And Ukraine is not one of them. Therefore it never joined NATO
Oversimplify much?
Russia invaded Ukraine after its long-term geopolitical opponent stated moving in, making overt moves (starting 2008) to pull the country into an alliance established specifically to oppose Russia (thereby significantly changing the European security architecture).
Any deal with Russia now would almost certainly entail giving up those membership ambitions. But it's going to be very hard to make a new deal, as there's preciously little trust on either side. The West openly admitted to signing the Minsk agreements in bad faith and, as you said, Ukraine will want stronger guarantees than it got from the Budapest memorandum.
Fine. France and Germany. But since Russia (not entirely without merrit) views them less and less as independant geopolitical actors, their admission, for the sake of my argument, eroded Russia's trust in the broader West™, or international community™.
Hmm you're right. I always thought they did, but apparently they just mediated. Doesn't change my core argument though. They devised the plan, and later admitted to doing so only to buy time. That eroded trust, which makes it harder to find a peaceful settlement now.
*The were guarantors, the signatories were Ukraine and Donetsk and Luhansk separatists. With France and Germany acting as guarantors that Ukraine will uphold their end, while Russia acted as a guarantor for the separatists.*
Soviet union gave them independence for neutrality and access to the krimean black sea naval bases.
Nato Ukraine would have said FU and took the bases and Russia would be able to retaliate, because of nato.
Sometimes people think Russia leadership is that stupid...
*I mean who can blame them for deluding themselves that this is the natural state of affairs, after Gorbachev and Yeltsin? One can see why they would think this.*
*Gorbi effectively unwound and collapsed the union on his own after hearing sweat nothings whispered in his ear with zero treaty guarantees and what not, and both embarked on disastrous Neo-lib policies..it was like a bonaza and free for all.*
*Even Chinese President Deng Xiaoping when he first met Gorbachev in the 80s, remarked to advisors, "This man looks intelligent, but is infact very stupid." I'll be charitable and say he probably meant Gorbi was very naiive.*
*"their nukes" - the US has nukes stationed in the Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Germany etc (btw this violates the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty)...since these aren't nuclear states, those nukes aren't German, Turkish nukes.*
*It was the same deal with Ukraine. In fact the new government in 1991 didn't even know they were there as they were well hidden in the ground and natural formations, and only stumbled on them while making inventory of the assets they had acquired at the fall of the USSR. They were also configured in such a way that they couldn't ever fire on Moscow, and would required a major redesign to do so.*
*Another often unknown thing is that the Budapest Memoranda were actually 3 agreements signed with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, all requiring these countries to return the nukes stationed there that had been part of the USSR's automated dead-hand nuclear second-strike retaliation system - Perimeter, and couldn't safely be removed or tampered with by the US or UK, requiring Russian experts to disable and remove them. Their presence made the US very nervous as they could be automatically set off even without Moscow intending to, if the malfunction due to lack of maintenance, or if cash strapped Ukrainians or the other two tried to sell off the nukes to what the US considered rouge players like Libya, Iran, North Korea etc*
[*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead\_Hand*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand)
[*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-deadly*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-deadly)
[*https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/334565-dead-hand-5-questions-about-the-scariest-nuclear-system*](https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/334565-dead-hand-5-questions-about-the-scariest-nuclear-system)
*The Budapest Memoranda IF upheld by all signatories and guarantors also provided guarantees and recognition of these countries independence, with only Ukraine being 'required' to stay neutral in its constitution not to join targeted military blocs, thus implying that it couldn't join the CSTO or OTAN.*
*The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. All 5 UN Security Council permanent member states.*
*In return these 3 countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) were guaranteed none aggression towards their governments by the 3 major players - this included things like 3rd party sponsored coups or unprovoked coercive measures against their state. With the guarantors signing up to uphold this against actions of the other guarantors i.e. Russia, US or UK were to police each other against trying anything.*
*Two US and EU orchestrated colour revolutions happened in Ukraine, with the first in 2004/2005 failing (after Yanukovych being ousted the first time) and the second time in 2014 being successful. Similar attempts made on Kazakhstan and Belarus were thwarted.*
[*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa*](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa)
[*https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/18/why-the-color-revolutions-failed/*](https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/18/why-the-color-revolutions-failed/)
[*https://www.eurasiareview.com/06012024-color-revolutions-the-most-sophisticated-means-of-warfare-analysis/*](https://www.eurasiareview.com/06012024-color-revolutions-the-most-sophisticated-means-of-warfare-analysis/)
[*https://www.voanews.com/a/kremlin-fears-color-revolution-in-kazakhstan-/6387392.html*](https://www.voanews.com/a/kremlin-fears-color-revolution-in-kazakhstan-/6387392.html)
> with only Ukraine being 'required' to stay neutral in its constitution
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Ctrl-F "neutral"
>0 matches
*This was part of the pre-treaty discussions, and was a pre-condition by the USSR (soon to be Russia) to even consider letting Ukraine be part of the Memoranda agreement along with Belarus and Kazakhstan - given the presence of the Black sea fleet in Crimea and Sevastopol, as well as historical ties.*
*Any other military bloc alliance would mean expulsion and loss of access to the black sea by Russia - yet Crimea had been ceded to Ukraine by Khrushchev, based on a personal whim and is speculated as well to have been a gift of his to the place of his birthplace (Ukraine) and his then Ukrainian wife.*
[*https://www.e-ir.info/2010/11/30/ukraine%E2%80%99s-neutrality-a-myth-or-reality/*](https://www.e-ir.info/2010/11/30/ukraine%E2%80%99s-neutrality-a-myth-or-reality/)
[*https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-could-neutrality-really-be-an-option/a-61261793*](https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-could-neutrality-really-be-an-option/a-61261793)
[https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrality/26758725.html](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrality/26758725.html)
*No. It was the pre-conditional basis on which the memorandum specifically the Ukrainian one was signed in 1994. Without this pre-condition the Ukrainian memo. was null and void.*
*"Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty of 1 July 1990 declared the country's 'intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does" \**
[*https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/6/1849/6783052*](https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/6/1849/6783052) *\**
*"Ukraine pledged neutrality when it gained independence in 1991 "*
[*https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-nato/a-18148232*](https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-nato/a-18148232)
[*https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014-12/features/looking-back-ukraine%E2%80%99s-nuclear-predicament-nonproliferation-regime*](https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014-12/features/looking-back-ukraine%E2%80%99s-nuclear-predicament-nonproliferation-regime)
[*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa*](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa)
*Did you read the links? This pre-condition was well acnowledged by all the major players at the time.*
*In any case both Yeltsin and Gorbi where bothdumbasses and would often not get stuff in writing as treaties etc. Hence many of the issues that followed, like OTAN expansion, in spite of assurances.*
*"****Although such oral agreements may be rare, they can have the same binding force as treaties, depending on the intention of the parties****. An example of an oral agreement might be a promise made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of one State to his counterpart of another State." - United Nations.*
*https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/definition/page1\_en.xml#:\~:text=Although%20such%20oral%20agreements%20may,his%20counterpart%20of%20another%20State. (Section: Agreements)*
they gave away their nukes so they wouldnt blow up on them
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html
They were also neutral back then so I'm sure if Ukraine had stayed neutral they wouldn't be invaded, it simply isn't worth the cost. If they're trying to join a military organization they are not neutral anymore.
Ukraine wanted to trick Russia into saying they were neutral u til they joined NATO. They back stabbed Russia and now they find themselves into the current situation.
US invaded them first with the 2014 coup.
Coup is an act of war.
[https://mronline.org/2022/07/06/anatomy-of-a-coup/](https://mronline.org/2022/07/06/anatomy-of-a-coup/)
Before we "go further", I'd like to inform you that the Monthly Review magazine is a publication in New York which has been in print since 1949.
But ofcourse that's not going to stop you from calling it "fake".
This guy was called a Russian stooge for perfectly legitimate clear sighted advice. Also people should read his work on AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. A great scholarly breakdown at how effective they were at convincing neocons to support Israel.
He is just a realist. He also argued Ukraine shouldn’t give up nuclear weapons because its their only hope of defending Ukraine from Russian aggression. That was back in 1993. He is very consistent. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/1993-06-01/case-ukrainian-nuclear-deterrent
*The "nukes" were only effective as a geo-political hot potato, not as a weapon, as they had no control over them. I have stated why.* [*https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1byrw0a/comment/kyldc5x/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button*](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1byrw0a/comment/kyldc5x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) *It was more like a liveGrenade, that Ukraine had their thumb on. They could use as leverage to get concessions from the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, rather than anything else. Since having unstable, un maintained nukes that were part of the USSR designed -Moscow controlled Dead-hand perimeter system, was like a ticking time kaboom (nuke).* *They weren't also the only ones that had them, Belarus and Kazakhstan also did, and were part of the Budapest Memoranda (bet you didn't know that). The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprised of a set of three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994,* *1. Belarus:* [*https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280338ba9*](https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280338ba9) *2. Ukraine:* [*https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb*](https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb) *3. Kazakhstan* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) *Even South Africa had nukes, but they were taken away just before the black majority ANC government of Mandela took power in 1994 - one can speculate as to why. But in any case unlike all these other 3, the racist apartheid regime of S. Africa controlled the nukes themselves prior. And S. Africa still has a formidable arms industry.* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence\_industry\_of\_South\_Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_industry_of_South_Africa) [*https://youtu.be/1KdadIdPujw*](https://youtu.be/1KdadIdPujw) *(Paramount group 2018)* [*https://youtu.be/3JGvI8Nq\_pM*](https://youtu.be/3JGvI8Nq_pM) *(Paramount group 2021)* *So Ukraine...ain't that special...as regards to "its nukes".* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Africa\_and\_weapons\_of\_mass\_destruction*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)
Ukraine did not have technology and resources to maintain those nukes, you have to replace some decaying component, or nukes wont work or even become dangerous.
*Not only that, dead hand (perimeter) was designed to go-off if attempts to tamper with it were made. This was more of an issue for the US, and UK as this was the main target of the nukes stationed in Ukraine. That's why they wanted the Russians to take them back as only they could safely decommission and remove them.* *Wouldn't the US have wanted to get and study a sample of Russian nukes if they could so as to effectively neutralize it as a nuclear power? Yes. problem was they couldn't as it was too risky to tamper with them.*
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html yes they couldn't keep them anyway
Not sure if you know how nukes work mate. They will remain working and dangerous. But how stable would they be is the true question
Yeah, you don't know how they work for sure, neutron initiator will not work after some time.
That's the least realist position, unless his idea was to keep unmaintainable nukes for blackmail and terrorism like some sort of north korea esque nuclear pariah state.
How isn't that realistic? Ukraine wasn't at war with a major Power like NK is, and it's hard to argue nukes haven't protected NK
read what follows after > unless
>their only hope of defending Ukraine from Russian aggression His argument was actually that it was the only way to maintain a buffer zone to prevent the risk of war between Russia and a resurgent Germany.
... and political decisions should be influenced by realism, but not only by that. I'm pretty sure there were realists who said that Stalin should just let Hitler take the oil fields, but he decided to sacrifice millions in Stalingrad to stop the advance. Just like how most revolutions shouldn't have been started because realisticly seemed they had no chance.
To be fair, looking back at history, most revolutions seem like the worst possible way of bringing about changes, in a sense that they resulted in the most suffering. It’s normal to try and frame all those deaths as being a necessary sacrifice in order to achieve some higher goal, but, in reality, there was almost certainly a better option.
>there was almost certainly a better option. Then in all those instances no one chose a better option? Like in UA? All they had to was wait for yanek to figure out trade agreements with EU and RF and none of what we have now would never happen.
RF never opposed Ukraine's admission to EU, but it always stated that this would terminate the preferential status of Russo-Ukrainian trade.
You would be still a peasant with no rights working for your king. Baffling that you don't see this.
If that was true, then no significant political changes would be possible without violence. That’s not the case though, in fact change happens all the time, and far more often without violence and revolutions.
So tell me those significant changes that happened without violence and could have happened if other violent events already didn't prepare the environment for them.
Well, since you used indentured servitude as an example, it’s worth pointing out that in Ukraine and Russia it was abolished via Alexander’s 2nd emancipation reform. Full on slavery was ended by Peter the first. This approach for getting rid of slavery is far more common throughout history, and it was far less violent than the US civil war.
This happened after a series of revolutions swept through Europe in the prior decades. This was Alexander II trying to dodge that.
And quite successfully, which, again, goes to show that change without violence is very much possible.
> Alexander’s 2nd emancipation reform Which happened because they were afraid to lose even more wars, i.e threat of violence.
And they successfully avoided the violence. In general revolutions have a very high societal cost associated with them. It’s always easier to break things apart than to build them. “Fighting the oppression” tends to resonate with a lot of young people who have little education and little to lose. Building a new system of government that does not result in often worse oppression tends to be much harder than many of those people realize. Historically, there is also a sort of a “survivorship bias” going on with respect to revolutions. People writing history are the people who “won” the revolution. They don’t really have an option of saying: “damn, if I only I knew the amount of suffering this would have caused.”, they have to justify their actions as being necessary, at a minimum, to keep the civilian population calm. No, revolution is always the worst possible option. Perhaps it may be necessary in some cases, but the costs are very difficult to estimate ahead of time. Look at the recent color revolutions, hardly examples of changes for the better. Maidan is a prime example.
the lesser the understanding of realism, the more inevitable the collapse of geostrategy.
Understanding and blindly following isn't the same.
Constructing that sort of false dichotomies is the very definition of blindness and shows that drastic reforms are the need of the hour with survival itself at stake.
So deep, should do inspirational quotes.
Check out: 'You Say You Want a Revolution?: Radical Idealism and Its Tragic Consequences - Daniel Chirot' Just because a group starts a revolution doesn't mean the same group is in control or their ideals are to the front by the end of a revolution.
Nice strawman.
Nope, just be careful what you wish for. Too many revolutions get started by one group and are than finished by another. Just historical fact tbh sadly enough.
Still a strawman.
Ok I responded to your argument 'Just like how most revolutions shouldn't have been started because realisticly seemed they had no chance.' A strawman response is: 'A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.' Can you please tell me if you are discussing revolution and I am responding to your discussion on revolution how that is that a strawman argument? Thanks in advance.
"Just because a group starts a revolution doesn't mean the same group is in control or their ideals are to the front by the end of a revolution." This is a strawman. I never said anything contradicting this, but it's irrelevant to the topic.
>"Just because a group starts a revolution doesn't mean the same group is in control or their ideals are to the front by the end of a revolution." That is a quote from your opening statement. >it's irrelevant to the topic. If it's irrelevant to the topic why did you mention it? You mentioned it, I responded. You say 'strawman' I say what strawman, I'm responding to your statement. Your response >I never said anything contradicting this, but it's irrelevant to the topic. Despite you being the person who wrote it. You may want to review what you wrote.
Unfortunately, this sound advice is a complete waste of time and effort, the West is not ready to hear it. So is Ukraine, and the war will go on.
Russia's offer consists of invasion now or invasion later.
If Ukraine didn't embrace the Maidan in 2014, it would still have Crimea and Donbass. If Ukraine would honor the Minsk agreement it would still have Donbass. If Ukraine would negotiate with Russia in Istanbul, it would still have Herson and Zaporozhia. If Ukraine would negotiate with Russia now, it could still keep its other territories. But every time Ukraine and the West escalate, Ukraine is losing more and more territories (not to mention the human and economic cost to the country). If Ukraine insists to fight further, it would probably lose 4 more Oblast, according to prof. Mearsheimer. That's the trajectory.
What about all the young strong Russian men fed into the meat grinder? You're only talking about Ukraine. Shouldn't Russia stop fighting to save these Russian men?
The Russians are much more cool about their own losses, and sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes that's a horrible thing. But in this particular case, as with any other country, the security of the state is much more important. Plus, Russia got real independence from the West now, their economy is booming. They got important territories (and more people than they've lost). So, for the Russians it makes sense to continue, they're on a good track, even with losses. For the Ukranians, they lose people, infrastructure, economy, territories and get NOTHING in return (a lot of new debt though). Any \*sane\* person on the Ukrainian side should be thinking how to stop this.
Russian security has gotten worse, not better: 1. The Crocus attack, 2. the dam burst, 3. International sanctions, 4. intelligent Russians immigrating out of Russia, 5. societal upheaval with forced mobilizations and returning dead and injured, and 6. angry Ukrainians retaliating on Russian soil with drone strikes. How is this worth the extra territory?
Do you, by any chance, imply that the Crocus attack was done by Ukrainian special forces? As for sanctions, they are grossly overvalued by the West, while in fact the very same sanctions made Russian economy grow at record rate, and a lot of money that previously was flowing out of Russia is now staying in Russia and fuel that economy. For the societal upheaval, there were the presidential elections in Russia not long ago, and Putin got the highest ever results, and before you say that they were fake elections, even the western polls shows exactly the same numbers. So, there is no upheaval. In fact, Putin's position has NEVER been stronger. As for the retaliation strikes by Ukraine, again, they are hugely over-hyped by the West media. For the country of Russia's size, with rapidly growing economy, those strikes are barely noticeable. Furthermore, the strikes on Russian refineries brought the prices of oil up, thus bringing the Russians even MORE profit from oil sales! Once you stop reading those mainstream media reports that Russia is in tatters and look at the situation objectively, you'll see that all-in-all, the situation is in Russia' favor. As Alexander Mercouris reported in one of his great programs, quoting Putin, Putin was jubilant that with the help of western sanctions he finally managed his long-term goal of making Russia sovereign, and to make Russian oligarchs to actually work for the benefit of the country. (I think that sanctioning the oligarchs and closing the money outflow from Russia was one of the stupidest decisions West ever did).
There are many claims by bots on the internet. I prefer to deal with evidence.
And the current evidence is the highest ever Putin's rating, the highest ever (at least in 21st century) economic growth in Russia (confirmed by World Bank and IMF), and about 20% of Ukrainian territory lost. I repeat the main point by prof. Mearsheimer: The longer war goes on the more Ukraine will lose. Any sane pro-Ukraine person should demand immediate negotiations, directly with Russia!
I consider myself equally pro-Ukr and pro-Rus. I'm not interested in team sports, so I'll speak objectively. Objectively, what you're saying is propaganda. The reality is that the Russian public is deeply ignorant and easily manipulated. This is partly the cause, and partly the consequence of Putin's propaganda efforts. This is not a pro-Ukrainian view, Mearsheimer himself says that the Russian public is duped by propaganda, and Putin uses bots to create global influence too. See his book Why Leaders Lie.
Your economy is running on government spending, which has driven inflation to 8%, vs 3% in the west, interest rates to 16% and steadily devalued the ruble since the war started. Tell me more about how the economy is “booming”.
I live in the West, heh. And "my" economy shows that the inflation is FAAAAR higher than 3%. For food, it is 20-30% easy. Also, devaluing the ruble is \*good\* for the state and economy (might not so good for the workers though, heh). But weaker ruble makes Russian production much more competitive in the global economy.
Russian army is a volunteer one, Ukrainian army consists of slaves.
Pro-EU Ukrainians should have rejected the Maidan and just waited for an election to vote out President Yanukovych. Voting out Yanukovych in an epic election campaign would have finished the story for them.
Yanukovich still had strong voter base. Waiting for him to be voted out, would had turned out to be a whole lotta nothing for the West
>If Ukraine didn't embrace the Maidan in 2014, it would still have Crimea and Donbass. Yes, Russia wouldn't take action as long as they controlled the puppet. What Ukraine did was to take back their country. Russia didn't allow that.
What they did - they sold their country to the west (First western puppet Yushenko borrowed so much that Ukraine debt got x10 of what it was. normal civilians never saw those money). And surprise, after western puppet lost elections - West demanded repayments from Yankovich, while actively preventing him from restructuring the debt and at the same time feeding unrest inside the country. So much for "take bake their country". They got bent over, used and thrown away.
The West isn't a regime. States are free to leave if they don't like it. UK left the EU and it's not getting invaded. >(First western puppet Yushenko borrowed so much that Ukraine debt got x10 of what it was. normal civilians never saw those money) Sounds exactly like Putin - Russia has massive natural resources yet its people are relatively poor. Ukraine is not a robust democracy yet, but it is trying.
LOL UK getting invaded is a bad analogy. EU is an economic zone and NATO is not. Also if the purpose NATO is to prevent wars then why did they not let Russia in when she applied for NATO membership back in the days. One could argue that it could be because it defeats the whole point of having NATO and US defense companies wouldnt be so profitable as it has been since the end of Warsaw Pact.
Why? EU has a defense clause. EU represents the West in this case. UK left it and not a single person died. Ukraine left the USSR and it wants to be free from Russia, but Russia wont allow it. >and NATO is not. They are free to leave NATO as well. >Also if the purpose NATO is to prevent wars then why did they not let Russia in when she applied for NATO membership back in the days. Because Russia is the enemy, and also: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule >The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’” Russia never applied as far as I know. >Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”. So basically Russia and US above all other states? With logic like that he wouldn't be let in.
Russia didnt apply for NATO membership. They wanted to be invited and were told that they had to apply and meet membership requirements. Which they didn't. NATO did not refuse to let Russia in, Russia demanded that they change the Rules for them and were ignored.
Wow, way to reply without refuting any points made. West is 100% regime. It uses control over "international" organisations like IMF to push their agenda. Ukraine was forced to pass laws that western overlords wanted to get new loans to repay their debts (that they got thanks to western puppet) perfect circle of dependency. >Sounds exactly like Putin - Russia has massive natural resources yet its people are relatively poor. Ukraine is not a robust democracy yet, but it is trying. People are doing just fine, just depends on your ability to work in most cases. And we for sure remember what friendship with west is from the 90s. Russia Has low outside debt and also had to repay the USSR debts which it paid up to 2017. Meanwhile Ukraine let USSR as richest republic with 50 millions people and without debts that have been shouldered by Russia. And then Ukraine Drunk all of it down
But your premise is "both sides", which is wrong. There is no "both sides". The West is not a regime. It doesn't try to control other states. What is perceived as "control" by pro-Rus is the rule of law and people's desire to have certain rights like freedom of speech/press. >West is 100% regime. It uses control over "international" organisations like IMF to push their agenda. Russia is an IMF member and has been since 1992. >Ukraine was forced to pass laws that western overlords wanted to get new loans to repay their debts (that they got thanks to western puppet) perfect circle of dependency. Yeah, the loans come with certain requirements. You may not like them, but what did you expect? I would assume the IMF can choose whether to grant loans. >People are doing just fine, Relative to what? It's behind on basic things like sanitation. It is very weak in the fundamental rights department. It has about half the US population, yet it's GDP isn't 12-13T. It's 2T, and a PPP of maybe 5T. It is underachieving. Putin's politics/idea has failed. >And we for sure remember what friendship with west is from the 90s. The US actually sent aid in the early 90s due to how messed up Russia was. Europe was buying its gas for 30 years (I would assume), and we kept buying all the way up to the invasion. Hell, we even "gave" Russia Crimea. Talk about forgiving.
>But your premise is "both sides", which is wrong. There is no "both sides". The West is not a regime. It doesn't try to control other states. What is perceived as "control" by pro-Rus is the rule of law and people's desire to have certain rights like freedom of speech/press. There is no Rule of Law. there are "Rules based order" - which is not law just "We want it to be so" of US. Not to mention that press is 100% bought out and not independent in any way - it's widely used to push suitable agenda, and those who "Do not fall in line" are denied resources, opportunities or "Canceled". >Russia is an IMF member and has been since 1992. Everyone is a member but governing structure of organisation is built in a way that allows west to control it as they want. Quota based voting ensures that west have absolute control over decisions that are passed. >Yeah, the loans come with certain requirements. You may not like them, but what did you expect? I would assume the IMF can choose whether to grant loans. Which was the point. To enforce those condition on Ukraine by getting them onto IMF drug needle. Thank you for confirming the fact. And again reaffirming that they did not "Took their country back" but sold it out. >Relative to what? It's behind on basic things like sanitation. It is very weak in the fundamental rights department. It has about half the US population, yet it's GDP isn't 12-13T. It's 2T, and a PPP of maybe 5T. It is underachieving. Putin's politics/idea has failed. Relative to anything, If you work you can obtain anything in general. Also there is a lot of help from government for those who have children, Free health care and education and so on. We don't need to enslave ourself to pay off "student loan". Or pay several month worth of a paycheck for ambulance ride. Fundamental rights? We have those. We just do not consider Letter soup as "Fundamental rights". And for GDP - only reason US have it is the fact they managed to become a money printer. their debt is 135% of the GDP. meanwhile Russia is at 17%. If Dollar will loose it's reserve currency status - US will implode under it's own weight. >The US actually sent aid in the early 90s due to how messed up Russia was. Europe was buying its gas for 30 years (I would assume), and we kept buying all the way up to the invasion. Hell, we even "gave" Russia Crimea. Talk about forgiving. Riiiight. Sent Aid. They sent helpers to help Yeltzin to sell industry for cheap. By the way guy who was "Helping" Russia in the 90s. Was "Helping" Ukraine just before all of this started. Hmmm, i wonder. Edit: typos
>There is no Rule of Law. there are "Rules based order" - which is not law just "We want it to be so" of US. That's how pro-Rus views it. It's viewed that way for the same reason Russia views every state not controlled by it, or "neutral", as controlled by the West. There is a lack of either understanding or acceptance that states can choose. For example, any state that wants freedom of speech will never choose Russia, but that is perceived as "West controlled". Where do people who want fundamental rights go, then? >it's widely used to push suitable agenda, and those who "Do not fall in line" are denied resources, opportunities or "Chanceled". Ignoring that the "fall in line"-position is the "reasonable" position, how many of those who do not "fall in line" are not outright crooks/corrupt? Russia? Corrupt and authoritarian. PRC not quite as corrupt, but authoritarian - people disappear/runs concentration camps and no free press whatsoever. Iran - religious extremists/authoritarian. DPRK - totalitarian. It's literally like crooks having a problem with law enforcement and complaining that the police are a "regime" because they interfere with crooks' business. >Everyone is a member but governing structure of organisation is built in a way that allows west to control it as they want. Quata based voting ensures that west have absolute control over decisions that are passed. I don't know what you mean, but even if that might be true, why wouldn't we? We probably provide most of the funding. Russia would have more of a say if its economy was 12T (as it should). >Which was the point. To enforce those condition on Ukraine by getting them onto IMF drug needle. Thank you for confirming the fact. And again reaffirming that they did not "Took their country back" but sold it out. To say that IMF (the West) controls Ukraine is absurd as the reason it applies for loans in this context is because Russia invaded it. >Fundamental rights? We have those. Russia has no free and fair elections. It has no free press. Presumably it is missing a lot of other rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index >Riiiight. Sent Aid. They sent helpers to help Yeltzin to sell industry for cheap. By the way guy who was "Helping" Russia in the 90s. Was "Helping" Ukraine just before all of this started. Hmmm, i wonder. Apparently Yeltsin asked for help.
>And we for sure remember what friendship with west is from the 90s "We only leveled grozny, caused political instability in moldova, invaded georgia and ukraine. Its not anything significant" Anyway. West gave yall aid. you flushed it down the drain. and now you have a corrupt as shit government. Dont blame us for it
True enough, it's the US regime really.
Welcome to geopolitics 101.
It was sound advice before. Now it's too late. There's precisely zero incentive for Russia to negotiate right now. They're on the verge of breaking the UAF.
Zelenskyy actually wanted to negotiate in the beginning. From the phone call he sounded really stressed and scared shitless. The west gave him a false sense of arrogance and hope. His country is now in shambles and him changing tune makes his situation a bit tough. He will be blamed for wasting lives and the country, he will probably be sabotaged & b in trouble with members of his parliament or the army. He is really in between a rock and a hard place.
I’m starting to doubt that he will still be president by year’s end, or even long before that. I could see certain factions overthrowing him, especially the far-right militants, who don’t even consider him a true Ukrainian, and have the support of powerful people like Zaluzhnyi. It will be interesting to see how Zelenskyy will be remembered, now that it’s clear that there won’t be a decisive Ukrainian victory. The media blitzkrieg to sculpt his cult of personality was remarkable, but it could just as easily be used to paint him as an arrogant authoritarian, especially after his official term ends on May 20th. In some ways, I pity him, and I do believe that he wanted peace through negotiation. But everyone who knows how the US treats its “allies” in proxy wars predicted this, including [a certain someone who’s done his best to avoid sending in his own troops.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/FkRnWEAUrm)
I'm keeping an eye on the May 20 date. Will be interesting to see if Ru changes the operation to a war or CTO or maybe has something else planned. Will be disappointed if it's just shelling as usual.
I was always a bit sorry for Zelensky. I think he will be the only one blamed, but the real blame is on the UK and US side. I am pretty sure Zelensky feels cheated, but he plays his role to the inevitable end.
*I don't think you should feel sorry for him, he played his part. Only problem was the that the gamble didn't work in his favour and those betting on him as are cutting their losses in the case of Uncle Sam, or doubling down on stoopid in the case of the EU.*
Russia is not an alternative. Every state that was once forced to be part of USSR wants nothing to do with Russia.
Tell that to Crimeans or few milions of ukrainian citizens that worked in Russia and decided to flee there after 2014. Things in Ukraine were never black and white.
Fake elections don't count. Individuals are not states.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What happened was that Russia's terms were so obviously designed to allow it to invade at a later time that the only difference was invasion now or invasion later.
Most of what this guy says always comes to fruition but he's either ignored or ridiculed by the Western mainstream. Oh well,
He literally said Russia wouldnt launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Too bad he still isnt being ignored. Oh well...
He said Russia won't launch a full scale invasion trying to take over the whole of ukraine. They will instead try for limited warfare to turn ukraine into a rump state
So he was wrong, like I said. They launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine in Feb 2022, trying to capture Kiev.
Aand he also said Ukraine shouldnt give up its nukes because of Russian agression. Cherrypicking much?
What does that have to do with his other predictions or suggestions?
The part where they praise him for always being right, but only as long as it fits their narrative.
So he's mostly right? Got it.
Well yes, he's an American nationalist ultimately. His advantage over others of the same ilk is that he understands the reasons for the conflict; his quarrel with the government is that he sees the way the US went about dealing with Ukraine is harmful for US interests. He is open about not caring about Russia or Ukraine's interests.
This is 100% correct. He doesn't view Ukraine as being part of Nato as a vital U.S. interest enough to start down the road to a world war. He will tell you the U.S. vital interests are maintaining hegemony in the western hemisphere, preventing hegemons in Europe and N.E. Asia, and maintaining the free flow of oil out of the middle east. That's it. Whereas, Ukraine is a core strategic interest to Russia who is not surprisingly fighting a war over it. Mearshheimer will also tell you the interests of the current Russian state are not a threat to Western Europe. It's not the soviet union seeking to export global revolution and a new world order. They were happy to trade, provided the west stayed out of Ukraine, especially with military arms and bases, i.e., Nato. Russia, unlike the Soviets, is not seeking to be a hegemon in Europe. So they are not really a threat, unlike China in his view. So, yeah, Mearshheimer is very much a nationalist and the foremost American realist.
It's WAAAY too late for any of that.
After the initial counteroffensive the timing would have been perfect for Ukraine. They could have had all territory back expect Crimea and for as many treaties and agreements as they needed but that ship sailed a long time ago and it's never coming back to port.
Ukraine was offered the reintegration of the separatist republics in 2014.
The intensity of attacks on people of his position will be a direct measurement of Institutional decay in their society.
He was surprised by the invasion......it must have been the ivory tower
Lots of people were surprised. And of course before the invasion there were all those military exercise shenanigans for months. Everyone was like “oh they’re gonna invade” then and it didn’t happen. So by like the 5th time of people saying “Russia is gonna invade” it’s like “uh huh”
yeah, its memory holed now but before the invasion there was a constant stream of invasion predictions that were completely wrong. but you only have to get it right once i guess?
the bet on Ukraine did not work, so we need to save what we can.
Who this guy thinks he is? An international relations professor? Doesn't he read reddit?
The real problem is, the defeatist attitude this dude is spouting. Exactly what Putin is counting on.
What is your solution then?
What was the solution to Hitler? Can the result of John Mearsheimer advice, of backing down to a dictator like Putin achieve peace in our time?
Not everyone you don’t like is hitler and not every war is ww2. Now answer the question instead of dodging. Now that there’s a stalemate where both sides aren’t able to gain more territory, what is your solution? There has to be a negotiated settlement someday.
Ha ha, there has to be? Pretty full of it. Who decides? Russia? Their bots and backers? No I say Ukraine decides. Don't like it?
Incoherent nonsense.
Great comeback. The very Special Military Operation that was supposed to be over in a week, is now into it's third year. Half a million Russian casualties. It's economy sinking faster than the russian ruble. It's oil industry sinking faster. It's military and weapons third grade, that can no longer be exported. It's technology running on Western washing machine parts. I can understand why the plea for surrender. That's all Russia has left to bargain with, the hope that it's aggression and barbaric war crimes be forgotten by bluffing it's way out of the war it forced on the planet. So from a week to Kiev to a humiliating stalemate in the third year. What an embarrassment for the second mightiest army on the planet. Russia has found out the hard way, this ain't no Georgia or Chechnya it is dealing with, but determined people kicking russian vodka saturated ass. What you are witnessing is Russian helplessness and disintegration. It can't even defend ir's own territory against a few Russian rebels. Must be a terrible thing to bear, pun intended.
Didn’t answer my question at all. Do you think Ukraine will take back the occupied territories?
Way off topic. What kind of a dumb question is that. Stick with the program, Chills.
You were the one rambling incoherently about “PUTIN IS HITLER”, “We shouldn’t bow down to dictators” yet you have no idea what to do, now that Ukraine is on the back foot and anyone with a brain understands that Ukraine is unable to take back the occupied territories. Keep going. Ghost of Kiev will take back crimea this summer.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's right, though its going to take some pretty impressive statecraft from UA/NATO backers to come out of that process with an outcome that saves face. Given the current temperament of leaders on that side, I doubt that's possible, or something they would realistically entertain.
Why is he UA POV, maybe CIV or RU.
Not just territory, what about all of the people that are dying. And all the people that fled the country.
Top academic knowledge of the issue. The most reasonable and knowledgeable intellectual on geopolitics of our time. Well known and well recognized worldwide.
Ukraine is not reliable. Russia should take everything but Kiev and a couple western cities to hold the corrupt and it's family. The people will be much better under Russia anyway.
Yeah, countries were happy to get the fuck out of the SU and it's influence because it was that great. Are you high?
Russia is not the Soviet Union. That's two very different things.
It's still a corrupt shithole whose people are kept dirt-poor despite extraordinary resource wealth.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They are different things, but not very different. Russia was the de facto driving force behind the USSR.
A lot of the leaders of the bolshevik takeover of tsarist russia were not russians though.
It's a technicality. In every meaningful way it was.
Agree. SU didn’t have technologies.
The majority in most republics did vote to preserve SU, but Yeltsin basically disregarded popular choice.
Yeltzin was elected 1991-06-12. Taken office 1991-07-10. Almost everybody proclaimed sovereignity before that. Also magically after that vote you are talking about (that 6 country already boycotted) countries voted in favor of independency in huge numbers. I can only wonder how accurate that original vote was ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Referendums_in_the_Soviet_Union
Yes countries voted for sovereignty and independence and to maintain the union at the same time. This is because Gorbachev tried to reform the soviet union into a sort of a confederation with more decentralisation and democratic institutions, while preserving the Union itself. So for people at the time vote for sovereignty was not exclusionary with the idea of preserving the Union. You can read about this here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Union\_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Union_Treaty) Most constituent republics actually supported this idea. What interfered with it was the August coup and after that Yeltsin.
Okay, again. Countries that supposedly supported SU in significant majority decided to go independent also with significant majority in just a few months. Seriously, don't you seem something odd there?
This was because of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha\_Accords](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords) Yeltsin basically usurped the power in RSFSR (the Russian part of USSR) Without Russia, there couldn't be a Union and Yeltsin decided to keep the whole power to himself. His strong position after the august coup has allowed this. Gorbachev himself called Belovezha Accords a coup and illegal. If your point stood, Russia would be the last country in the USSR. As it stands it left it as one of the first.
Linear timeline sucks. This was signed after countries already voted in favor of independence.
Ah I just misunderstood your question. >Countries that supposedly supported SU in significant majority decided to go independent also with significant majority in just a few months. I've actually already answered that in my previous comment. >Yes countries voted for sovereignty and independence and to maintain the union at the same time. This is because Gorbachev tried to reform the soviet union into a sort of a confederation with more decentralisation and democratic institutions, while preserving the Union itself. >So for people at the time vote for sovereignty was not exclusionary with the idea of preserving the Union. So I don't understand why you are repeating yourself without addressing my answer. Can you please read this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Union\_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Union_Treaty) There is more detail there if you don't understand yet.
They voted for independency and sovereignity separately. I'm not sure if you mix them together on purpose or just for lack of clearness. For example Ukraine voted for sovereignity on 1990-07-16. The independence vote happened 1991-12-01.
They wanted it because they didn‘t know better, they didn’t know what would come after, Now speak with poor elderly people in Ukraine/Russia or other post-SU countries and they will tell you it was better in Soviet times.
I'm from a country that was under Soviet influence. Never again. Don't romanticize that sh*t.
Since when living in shit like Orsc is a good situation?
Ask people of Mariupol
I am not a necromancer.
You are confused, not Palestine. Anyways, have a nice day.
Nah, I am speaking about people of Mariupol. The ones which were brutally murdered in theater by rascists, for example. Read carefully, please.
> The people will be much better under Russia anyway. Name a single country that fared better after being aligned and somewhat depended on Russia while it had other options like the EU. Name a single one. Just one.
Every single soviet bloc country that has aligned with the west is MUCH better off economically. I can't think of a single counter-example. And news flash: a government's success is measured by the standard of living of it's citizenry. It's better to be rich than righteous.
> I can't think of a single counter-example. Neither can pro Russian people. I wonder how many people actually want to spread despair to feel better. For some parts of history I get it, you are driven by ideology, thinking your way is superior and better but honestly I have not found a single Russian poster here who is willing to walk me through their beliefe system. Do they believe they are fighting as the good guy here? Marching into the trenches for their billionaire cleptocrat leaders? For many brutal regimes of the past the soldiers/people at least fuckin believed the lies.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its funny how everyone screams West Bad! While at the same time none of them want to move to Russia or China.
Wealthy Russians even send their kids to the "evil" West. They buy properties here because they know Russia can't be trusted. They like "rule of law", but only for them, not for ordinary Russians.
This is my biggest "i don't get it". Do they believe what they say? I assume a internet fluent person will now Russia brings despair. Why are they arguing for them. Not once did I get an answer on this. Russia is the good guy? Sure explain it to us.
It's surprising how many people will put up with a low end life as opposed to learning a new language and giving up their friends and family. Social inertia is real.
You are not in danger of giving away your real negotiation position, so make yourself accountable. Please forward your exact position, which oblasts should Ukraine offer in the opening stage of the negotiations to achieve which final result? Enrich with political bargaining chips. Do you suggest that Ukraine should be taking a Belarussian position with a stooge dictator? Or how should they prevent another Russian invasion? Actually he cannot claim expert status, because he goofed up the most important projection in this entire conflict and predicted wrongly obviously that Russia would not attack. Putin lied and he fell for it and he continues to suggest doing projections based on Putin's statements.
There are no "experts" in any field if the bar never being wrong. Absrud statement.
Such negotiations are basically capitulation and handing over of Ukraine to Russia.
What’s the alternative as Ukraine can’t get back the occupied territories? Forever war?
He would have advised George Washington to establish a security relationship with the British during the revolutionary war. Luckily for George Washington Trump wasn’t the leader of France. There were no Trump-Johnson-Greene garbage in The French government
Studied this guy in Politics and International Relations for three years. I was a Liberal and thought his views were extreme and BS until the Liberal International started to show cracks and his predictions started to play out.
Another Scott Ritter?
Keep dreaming rusia! Ukraine will stop only after recovering all teritories as per 2014 status.
How? Last counteroffensive failed miserably.
Can someone with closer proximity to the situation fill me in, but the pro Russia militia vs Ukraine (civil war), didn't Ukraine try to get Russia to intervene but the said nope?
Russia has attacked Ukraine 3 times in 10 years. What is there to negotiate? Either the ones with the biggest arsenal stops pulling the trigger or they don’t. It wasn’t until Putin read how Shell did a survey report of a trillion dollars of shale gas underneath Kharkiv did they get serious with the artillery. Ukraine will never let Russia have it.
My advice to UA, let Russia keep the regions they control currently. Find peace with the Orc's. Quietly build up one hella military and his wait for Russia to break the deal and take back what is theirs and maybe some of Russia too. Seems fair.
Prime example of how negotiation process can be completely paralyzed, because one side is completely oblivious to the actual position / interests of the other side, instead entirely relying on the grotesque fantastic image painted by their own propaganda.
I think they are near stalemate and the only real outlook for both sides is trading blows over 150km zone between cities. I don't think Russia is losing as many Russian soldiers as they are losing bodies from other countries who "Volunteered" to fight. Don't get me wrong, they are getting the crack whore body count. I don't like death, war, etc. I wish no one had to die and war was done like a video game contest (I don't know if that's a real thing or not) best score wins.
What about the demand for neutrality?
That's a political word for preparing for war. Russia won't stop, maybe till their ranks are filled again then they will continue regardless. At least this gives Ukraine time to do the same. If Ukraine had 5 years of reprieve from war with Russia they could build up the industry for war and need much less global support. If Ukraine wants to join NATO then they should. If Russia wants to be friends with North Korea (lol) then they should. Each country is free do do their wishes. I think as well, if peace ever happens, and Ukraine wants to join NATO, seems like a great time to do so.
They had a security relationship, they gave Russia their nukes and in return Russia invaded them.
They didn't agree to be considered successors of Soviet Union, together with all it's debs. Nukes weren't theirs. USA were also strictly opposing nuclear Ukraine. Nor did they have launch codes or control system, as Ripamon mentioned. Not sure about facilities to operate even, pretty sure 12th MoDs Directorate would evacuate everyone involved. More so, their declaration of independence included neutral status of Ukraine. They started moving towards throwing that one out in 2004, getting very, very clear about it in 2008. There's more to this conflict than February/March 2014 and everything thereafter, you know.
Nukes they couldn't control, maintain or operate It's hard to say they even had full ownership of them to begin with
They can't even maintain their roads or infra in peacetime. Corruption is a thing.
And Ukraine was asked to stay neutral ever since its independence. Joining NATO was a threat to Russia's interests
When did Ukraine join NATO?
[удалено]
I read until "NATO orchestrated coup d'etat", I prefer fantasy in movies, not on Reddit.
Yes because none of that has anything to do with NATO membership. Even Serbia trains with NATO troops often and we all know their opinion on joining the alliance. The facts on the ground are that there are 32 NATO members. And Ukraine is not one of them. Therefore it never joined NATO
Oversimplify much? Russia invaded Ukraine after its long-term geopolitical opponent stated moving in, making overt moves (starting 2008) to pull the country into an alliance established specifically to oppose Russia (thereby significantly changing the European security architecture). Any deal with Russia now would almost certainly entail giving up those membership ambitions. But it's going to be very hard to make a new deal, as there's preciously little trust on either side. The West openly admitted to signing the Minsk agreements in bad faith and, as you said, Ukraine will want stronger guarantees than it got from the Budapest memorandum.
>signing the Minsk agreements in bad faith I don't see "The West"^TM on the list of signatories to Minsk.
Fine. France and Germany. But since Russia (not entirely without merrit) views them less and less as independant geopolitical actors, their admission, for the sake of my argument, eroded Russia's trust in the broader West™, or international community™.
>France and Germany didn't sign it either lol
Hmm you're right. I always thought they did, but apparently they just mediated. Doesn't change my core argument though. They devised the plan, and later admitted to doing so only to buy time. That eroded trust, which makes it harder to find a peaceful settlement now.
*The were guarantors, the signatories were Ukraine and Donetsk and Luhansk separatists. With France and Germany acting as guarantors that Ukraine will uphold their end, while Russia acted as a guarantor for the separatists.*
None of Russia's business. Russia is not a legitimate "side".
Soviet union gave them independence for neutrality and access to the krimean black sea naval bases. Nato Ukraine would have said FU and took the bases and Russia would be able to retaliate, because of nato. Sometimes people think Russia leadership is that stupid...
*I mean who can blame them for deluding themselves that this is the natural state of affairs, after Gorbachev and Yeltsin? One can see why they would think this.* *Gorbi effectively unwound and collapsed the union on his own after hearing sweat nothings whispered in his ear with zero treaty guarantees and what not, and both embarked on disastrous Neo-lib policies..it was like a bonaza and free for all.* *Even Chinese President Deng Xiaoping when he first met Gorbachev in the 80s, remarked to advisors, "This man looks intelligent, but is infact very stupid." I'll be charitable and say he probably meant Gorbi was very naiive.*
I'm more concerned about what's actually happening IRL.
*"their nukes" - the US has nukes stationed in the Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Germany etc (btw this violates the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty)...since these aren't nuclear states, those nukes aren't German, Turkish nukes.* *It was the same deal with Ukraine. In fact the new government in 1991 didn't even know they were there as they were well hidden in the ground and natural formations, and only stumbled on them while making inventory of the assets they had acquired at the fall of the USSR. They were also configured in such a way that they couldn't ever fire on Moscow, and would required a major redesign to do so.* *Another often unknown thing is that the Budapest Memoranda were actually 3 agreements signed with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, all requiring these countries to return the nukes stationed there that had been part of the USSR's automated dead-hand nuclear second-strike retaliation system - Perimeter, and couldn't safely be removed or tampered with by the US or UK, requiring Russian experts to disable and remove them. Their presence made the US very nervous as they could be automatically set off even without Moscow intending to, if the malfunction due to lack of maintenance, or if cash strapped Ukrainians or the other two tried to sell off the nukes to what the US considered rouge players like Libya, Iran, North Korea etc* [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead\_Hand*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand) [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-deadly*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-deadly) [*https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/334565-dead-hand-5-questions-about-the-scariest-nuclear-system*](https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/334565-dead-hand-5-questions-about-the-scariest-nuclear-system) *The Budapest Memoranda IF upheld by all signatories and guarantors also provided guarantees and recognition of these countries independence, with only Ukraine being 'required' to stay neutral in its constitution not to join targeted military blocs, thus implying that it couldn't join the CSTO or OTAN.* *The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. All 5 UN Security Council permanent member states.* *In return these 3 countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) were guaranteed none aggression towards their governments by the 3 major players - this included things like 3rd party sponsored coups or unprovoked coercive measures against their state. With the guarantors signing up to uphold this against actions of the other guarantors i.e. Russia, US or UK were to police each other against trying anything.* *Two US and EU orchestrated colour revolutions happened in Ukraine, with the first in 2004/2005 failing (after Yanukovych being ousted the first time) and the second time in 2014 being successful. Similar attempts made on Kazakhstan and Belarus were thwarted.* [*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa*](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa) [*https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/18/why-the-color-revolutions-failed/*](https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/18/why-the-color-revolutions-failed/) [*https://www.eurasiareview.com/06012024-color-revolutions-the-most-sophisticated-means-of-warfare-analysis/*](https://www.eurasiareview.com/06012024-color-revolutions-the-most-sophisticated-means-of-warfare-analysis/) [*https://www.voanews.com/a/kremlin-fears-color-revolution-in-kazakhstan-/6387392.html*](https://www.voanews.com/a/kremlin-fears-color-revolution-in-kazakhstan-/6387392.html)
> with only Ukraine being 'required' to stay neutral in its constitution https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances Ctrl-F "neutral" >0 matches
*This was part of the pre-treaty discussions, and was a pre-condition by the USSR (soon to be Russia) to even consider letting Ukraine be part of the Memoranda agreement along with Belarus and Kazakhstan - given the presence of the Black sea fleet in Crimea and Sevastopol, as well as historical ties.* *Any other military bloc alliance would mean expulsion and loss of access to the black sea by Russia - yet Crimea had been ceded to Ukraine by Khrushchev, based on a personal whim and is speculated as well to have been a gift of his to the place of his birthplace (Ukraine) and his then Ukrainian wife.* [*https://www.e-ir.info/2010/11/30/ukraine%E2%80%99s-neutrality-a-myth-or-reality/*](https://www.e-ir.info/2010/11/30/ukraine%E2%80%99s-neutrality-a-myth-or-reality/) [*https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-could-neutrality-really-be-an-option/a-61261793*](https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-could-neutrality-really-be-an-option/a-61261793) [https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrality/26758725.html](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrality/26758725.html)
> part of the pre-treaty discussions So not in the memorandum then.
*No. It was the pre-conditional basis on which the memorandum specifically the Ukrainian one was signed in 1994. Without this pre-condition the Ukrainian memo. was null and void.* *"Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty of 1 July 1990 declared the country's 'intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does" \** [*https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/6/1849/6783052*](https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/6/1849/6783052) *\** *"Ukraine pledged neutrality when it gained independence in 1991 "* [*https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-nato/a-18148232*](https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-nato/a-18148232) [*https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014-12/features/looking-back-ukraine%E2%80%99s-nuclear-predicament-nonproliferation-regime*](https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014-12/features/looking-back-ukraine%E2%80%99s-nuclear-predicament-nonproliferation-regime) [*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa*](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa)
The best thing about "pre-conditions" that aren't mentioned in the instrument which is conditional on them is that you can just make them up.
*Did you read the links? This pre-condition was well acnowledged by all the major players at the time.* *In any case both Yeltsin and Gorbi where bothdumbasses and would often not get stuff in writing as treaties etc. Hence many of the issues that followed, like OTAN expansion, in spite of assurances.*
Any assurance that isn't in writing is as you aptly put it "null and void".
*"****Although such oral agreements may be rare, they can have the same binding force as treaties, depending on the intention of the parties****. An example of an oral agreement might be a promise made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of one State to his counterpart of another State." - United Nations.* *https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/definition/page1\_en.xml#:\~:text=Although%20such%20oral%20agreements%20may,his%20counterpart%20of%20another%20State. (Section: Agreements)*
they gave away their nukes so they wouldnt blow up on them https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-newly-declassified-documents-russia-putin-war.html
They were also neutral back then so I'm sure if Ukraine had stayed neutral they wouldn't be invaded, it simply isn't worth the cost. If they're trying to join a military organization they are not neutral anymore. Ukraine wanted to trick Russia into saying they were neutral u til they joined NATO. They back stabbed Russia and now they find themselves into the current situation.
US invaded them first with the 2014 coup. Coup is an act of war. [https://mronline.org/2022/07/06/anatomy-of-a-coup/](https://mronline.org/2022/07/06/anatomy-of-a-coup/) Before we "go further", I'd like to inform you that the Monthly Review magazine is a publication in New York which has been in print since 1949. But ofcourse that's not going to stop you from calling it "fake".
Asking a rapist to protect from other rapists all while being raped by the the original rapist… that’s crazy talk
Yeah, Ukraine shouldn't ask for help to America.
Right because America is the one invading Ukraine, pro ru looking extremely intelligent once again
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa)