sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

Psyops proved this long ago. But we've democratized the info sphere so much via social media that it easily consumes millions into chambers of affirmation bias requiring nothing more than volume approval (likes, reposts, comments). The concept of influencer isn't just some innocuous quasi-career of millennials. It's the greatest impact and core purpose of venues like Meta and X, and has become a primary battleground for information warfare.

With the advancements in AI, the ability to meld some facts with fiction (a classic disinformation technique) into seemingly logical narratives en masse and intertwined into invented support material makes this even more problematic. "You won't know who to trust" is already in play and is the real casualty of all of this, and why the battle lines of internal debate continue to get fiercer.

---

The short version of this is that you don't read books. The information has long existed outside of Twitter.

---

What does this even mean?

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"Putin continued to claim that NATO's 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no concrete steps towards opening such paths, violated Ukraine's 1991 Declaration of Independence that declared that Ukraine is a neutral state. The Russian Federation, however, had committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," which include Crimea and Donbas, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine's return of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.[12] The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

sombear said:

---

The Johnson story has been debunked by every serious outlet that examined the evidence.

There was nothing close to an agreement in Istanbul. There had been progress, but still multiple deal-breakers on both sides.

I understand your opinion, and, again, in hindsight, perhaps Ukraine should have taken the deal
And given up its sovereignty.

But Russia and Ukraine openly acknowledged there were major trust issues on both sides. Many on Zelensky's team thought them and still think now that Russia was never serious. In that context, I understand how Bucha and similar incidents became major obstacles to agreement. Of course Ukraine's battle successes factored in also.

---

I think you mean the Johnson story has been confirmed. See again the Nation article, based on Ukrainian sources no less:

Quote:

---

According to Davyd Arakhhamia, Ukraine's chief negotiator at Istanbul, "Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the NATO powers] are not."

---

And again, this was a deal that would have preserved Ukraine's sovereignty, not given it up.

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"Putin continued to claim that NATO's 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no concrete steps towards opening such paths, violated Ukraine's 1991 Declaration of Independence that declared that Ukraine is a neutral state. The Russian Federation, however, had committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," which include Crimea and Donbas, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine's return of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.[12] The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

Where does the Budapest Memorandum say anything about Ukraine choosing its own alignment?

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

Psyops proved this long ago. But we've democratized the info sphere so much via social media that it easily consumes millions into chambers of affirmation bias requiring nothing more than volume approval (likes, reposts, comments). The concept of influencer isn't just some innocuous quasi-career of millennials. It's the greatest impact and core purpose of venues like Meta and X, and has become a primary battleground for information warfare.

With the advancements in AI, the ability to meld some facts with fiction (a classic disinformation technique) into seemingly logical narratives en masse and intertwined into invented support material makes this even more problematic. "You won't know who to trust" is already in play and is the real casualty of all of this, and why the battle lines of internal debate continue to get fiercer.

---

The short version of this is that you don't read books. The information has long existed outside of Twitter.

---

What does this even mean?

---

Exactly.

Is this war driving Moscow and Beijing together supposed to be a good thing?

Putin 🇷🇺 and Xi 🇨🇳 on the way to their high-profile meeting in Beijing (which just started) to the sounds of Moscow Nights. Now THAT’s a welcome! pic.twitter.com/y4jMCM9eUq

— Nina 🐙 Byzantina (@NinaByzantina) May 16, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

Is this war driving Moscow and Beijing together supposed to be a good thing?

---

It is one of the most unfortunate outcomes of the stupidity of our leaders.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

That prompted a popular uprising. After several days of instructing his police to shoot unarmed protestors

---

Pure fiction.

"the analysis shows that the farright organizations and football ultras played a key role in political violence such as attempting to seize the presidential administration and the parliament. It reveals involvement of the Right Sector in violent clashes with the Berkut special police force during the highly publicized dispersal of Maidan protesters on November 30, 2013. The Right Sector and Svoboda had crucial roles in the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government, in particular, in the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police."

Link

Victoria Nuland, the State Department, and the CIA set all of that up.

---

So you're story is that the USG, specifically the Obama Admin, worked with the Ukrainian far right to build a movement that would drive Yanukovich from power. One variant of that amusing scenario is that they started that effort years in advance, as a contingency, should some future Ukrainian government ever strayed too from the desired EU/Nato path. Variant B is that the Obama Admin put all that into motion when Yanukovych abruptly withrdrew from the desired path. Neither scenario is terribly plausible when one looks at the track record of far-right groups fighting for their countries to do more with, and/ or join the EU/Nato. There aren't any. IN almost every instance, the farther right one goes, the more pro-Russian things tend to get.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"Putin continued to claim that NATO's 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no concrete steps towards opening such paths, violated Ukraine's 1991 Declaration of Independence that declared that Ukraine is a neutral state. The Russian Federation, however, had committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," which include Crimea and Donbas, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine's return of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.[12] The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

Where does the Budapest Memorandum say anything about Ukraine choosing its own alignment?

---

It's right there in bold. You must have skipped the "sovereignty" lecture in Poli Sci class.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

Russia once floated the idea of joining NATO. But that west and that NATO aren't this west and this NATO. At any rate. Russia's goal is to integrate ethnically Russian disenfranchised provinces into itself. At this point they are probably going to go to the Dniper, depose Zelensky, and build a sort of Maginot line. Thats assuming we dont do something dumb like send NATO forces into combat.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"Putin continued to claim that NATO's 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no concrete steps towards opening such paths, violated Ukraine's 1991 Declaration of Independence that declared that Ukraine is a neutral state. The Russian Federation, however, had committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," which include Crimea and Donbas, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine's return of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.[12] The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

Where does the Budapest Memorandum say anything about Ukraine choosing its own alignment?

---

It's right there in bold. You must have skipped the "sovereignty" lecture in Poli Sci class.

---

A frivolous argument, as if recognizing Ukraine's independence caused all its commitments to magically disappear.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

And there it is at last: the admission that maintaining this shatter zone, which you used to claim was of paramount importance, was never the real goal at all.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

Psyops proved this long ago. But we've democratized the info sphere so much via social media that it easily consumes millions into chambers of affirmation bias requiring nothing more than volume approval (likes, reposts, comments). The concept of influencer isn't just some innocuous quasi-career of millennials. It's the greatest impact and core purpose of venues like Meta and X, and has become a primary battleground for information warfare.

With the advancements in AI, the ability to meld some facts with fiction (a classic disinformation technique) into seemingly logical narratives en masse and intertwined into invented support material makes this even more problematic. "You won't know who to trust" is already in play and is the real casualty of all of this, and why the battle lines of internal debate continue to get fiercer.

---

The short version of this is that you don't read books. The information has long existed outside of Twitter.

---

What does this even mean?

---

Exactly.

---

Yes, you're proof it's working.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

They weren't letting them join the EU. Full stop. The scuffles over that are bubbling up again in Georgia,

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

---

-Pro-Russia regime change
-Federal, pro-Russia history and civics taught in schools
-Forced trade with Russia and trade restrictions elsewhere

---

Are you sure you're reading objectively? Because none of those points were in the draft agreement as reported by WSJ, Foreign Affairs, or anyone else that I've seen. There is some conjecture that regime change was part of Putin's original goal before negotiations started, but there's not a shred of evidence offered.

I would not have supported a security agreement committing the US beyond what was in the Budapest Memorandum and even beyond NATO Article 5. But that was far from the only option. Zelensky was advised that such a demand was unrealistic, and there's every reason to think the West could have persuaded him. Instead we delivered a clear message against any further negotiation.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

They weren't letting them join the EU. Full stop. The scuffles over that are bubbling up again in Georgia,

---

From the vaunted Foreign Affairs article:

Quote:

---

Although Ukraine would be permanently neutral under the proposed framework, Kyiv's path to EU membership would be left open, and the guarantor states (including Russia) would explicitly "confirm their intention to facilitate Ukraine's membership in the European Union."

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

---

-Pro-Russia regime change
-Federal, pro-Russia history and civics taught in schools
-Forced trade with Russia and trade restrictions elsewhere

---

Are you sure you're reading objectively? Because none of those points were in the draft agreement as reported by WSJ, Foreign Affairs, or anyone else that I've seen. There is some conjecture that regime change was part of Putin's original goal before negotiations started, but there's not a shred of evidence offered.

I would not have supported a security agreement committing the US beyond what was in the Budapest Memorandum and even beyond NATO Article 5. But that was far from the only option. Zelensky was advised that such a demand was unrealistic, and there's every reason to think the West could have persuaded him. Instead we delivered a clear message against any further negotiation.

---

There are general references in the FA article and other sources. And future U.S. military assistance was an integral part of the framework. There was no other way to come close to assuring Russian compliance. I've not seen anything saying we told Zelensky that was a deal-breaker.

---

Our refusal to participate in any multilateral agreement was obviously a deal-breaker. As you said, the Russians wanted us to be involved.

You've argued that the agreement would have left Ukraine dependent on Western intervention in case of hostilities with Russia. If that's true, US military assistance in peacetime was anything but an integral part of the framework. If anything it was a contradiction. Of course there was a reason for us to consider it essential, and that has to with our real goal. Not to achieve peace, but to build up an anti-Russian military force in Ukraine. Which is exactly what we did.

Regarding limitations on Ukraine's military, just look at the concessions that Germany made in order to achieve reunification. They included drastic reductions in military capacity, renunciation of nuclear ambitions, and the agreement that no foreign forces would be stationed in the former East Germany. Such demands are well precedented and completely unsurprising.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

---

-Pro-Russia regime change
-Federal, pro-Russia history and civics taught in schools
-Forced trade with Russia and trade restrictions elsewhere

---

Are you sure you're reading objectively? Because none of those points were in the draft agreement as reported by WSJ, Foreign Affairs, or anyone else that I've seen. There is some conjecture that regime change was part of Putin's original goal before negotiations started, but there's not a shred of evidence offered.

I would not have supported a security agreement committing the US beyond what was in the Budapest Memorandum and even beyond NATO Article 5. But that was far from the only option. Zelensky was advised that such a demand was unrealistic, and there's every reason to think the West could have persuaded him. Instead we delivered a clear message against any further negotiation.

---

There are general references in the FA article and other sources. And future U.S. military assistance was an integral part of the framework. There was no other way to come close to assuring Russian compliance. I've not seen anything saying we told Zelensky that was a deal-breaker.

---

Our refusal to participate in any multilateral agreement was obviously a deal-breaker. As you said, the Russians wanted us to be involved.

You've argued that the agreement would have left Ukraine dependent on Western intervention in case of hostilities with Russia. If that's true, US military assistance in peacetime was anything but an integral part of the framework. If anything it was a contradiction. Of course there was a reason for us to consider it essential, and that has to with our real goal. Not to achieve peace, but to build up an anti-Russian military force in Ukraine. Which is exactly what we did.

Regarding limitations on Ukraine's military, just look at the concessions that Germany made in order to achieve reunification. They included drastic reductions in military capacity, renunciation of nuclear ambitions, and the agreement that no foreign forces would be stationed in the former East Germany. Such demands are well precedented and completely unsurprising.

---

I don't understand your second paragraph. If you don't mind, please try right explain further.

I see your point on military limitations in general, but Germany is a poor example b/c the circumstances were nothing like Russia/Ukraine.

What made Russia's demands so difficult were the numbers. Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows. Russia would have had zero deterrent - at least without the pledge of U.S. force.

I think you and I agree negotiations were exceedingly complex. As I've posted before, I actually came away with a more negative view of Zelensky after reading FA and some recent corp analysis. I agree with the majority of analysts I trust that both sides looked bad.

I just try to rebut those posters who try to minimize what Russia was (and still is demanding (e.g, they just wanted a bit more of the east) or who claim it was an easy call for Ukraine to bend over. It wasn't. In fact, it would have been almost unprecedented in world history.

I acknowledge however that it might have been better than how this thing will end.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

He opposed NATO expansion to the far east for decades

He long said trying to bring Ukriane in would spark off conflict (and it did).

Now at the end he might have decided that since the war was here now then NATO might as well absorb Ukraine…but that is him adapting to facts on the ground.

His point still stands about the sensibility of doing it in the first place

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

They weren't letting them join the EU. Full stop. The scuffles over that are bubbling up again in Georgia,

---

From the vaunted Foreign Affairs article:

Quote:

---

Although Ukraine would be permanently neutral under the proposed framework, Kyiv's path to EU membership would be left open, and the guarantor states (including Russia) would explicitly "confirm their intention to facilitate Ukraine's membership in the European Union."

---

---

Yes, Russia wanted control over whether Ukraine could join the EU.

I'm fascinated by the seeming contradiction in logic that the U.S. created a coup to get an anti-Russian military position in Ukraine, but then scuttled a deal that would have put us even more in a position to be an anti-Russian military position in Ukraine. I mean they literally would have been fully dependent upon the U.S./West for their defense. You can't make this stuff up.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

---

-Pro-Russia regime change
-Federal, pro-Russia history and civics taught in schools
-Forced trade with Russia and trade restrictions elsewhere

---

Are you sure you're reading objectively? Because none of those points were in the draft agreement as reported by WSJ, Foreign Affairs, or anyone else that I've seen. There is some conjecture that regime change was part of Putin's original goal before negotiations started, but there's not a shred of evidence offered.

I would not have supported a security agreement committing the US beyond what was in the Budapest Memorandum and even beyond NATO Article 5. But that was far from the only option. Zelensky was advised that such a demand was unrealistic, and there's every reason to think the West could have persuaded him. Instead we delivered a clear message against any further negotiation.

---

There are general references in the FA article and other sources. And future U.S. military assistance was an integral part of the framework. There was no other way to come close to assuring Russian compliance. I've not seen anything saying we told Zelensky that was a deal-breaker.

---

Our refusal to participate in any multilateral agreement was obviously a deal-breaker. As you said, the Russians wanted us to be involved.

You've argued that the agreement would have left Ukraine dependent on Western intervention in case of hostilities with Russia. If that's true, US military assistance in peacetime was anything but an integral part of the framework. If anything it was a contradiction. Of course there was a reason for us to consider it essential, and that has to with our real goal. Not to achieve peace, but to build up an anti-Russian military force in Ukraine. Which is exactly what we did.

Regarding limitations on Ukraine's military, just look at the concessions that Germany made in order to achieve reunification. They included drastic reductions in military capacity, renunciation of nuclear ambitions, and the agreement that no foreign forces would be stationed in the former East Germany. Such demands are well precedented and completely unsurprising.

---

I don't understand your second paragraph. If you don't mind, please try right explain further.

I see your point on military limitations in general, but Germany is a poor example b/c the circumstances were nothing like Russia/Ukraine.

What made Russia's demands so difficult were the numbers. Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows. Russia would have had zero deterrent - at least without the pledge of U.S. force.

I think you and I agree negotiations were exceedingly complex. As I've posted before, I actually came away with a more negative view of Zelensky after reading FA and some recent corp analysis. I agree with the majority of analysts I trust that both sides looked bad.

I just try to rebut those posters who try to minimize what Russia was (and still is demanding (e.g, they just wanted a bit more of the east) or who claim it was an easy call for Ukraine to bend over. It wasn't. In fact, it would have been almost unprecedented in world history.

I acknowledge however that it might have been better than how this thing will end.

---

I took "future military assistance" to mean support for the Ukrainian military. I see now you probably meant US intervention.

All I really disagree with is the part in bold. I think you share the assumption of most Western commentators that the Russians entered negotiations because they were unprepared militarily. That has proven to be the grossest of miscalculations. The Russian successes we're seeing now were not made in a day. Far from being unprecedented, capitulation was the only realistic option. It was only the West's outlandish promises that pushed Ukraine the other way.

So you're telling us that by supporting EU membership, Russia was actually opposing it. And by reducing Ukraine's military, we would actually be building it up.

Bizarro World logic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

And there it is at last: the admission that maintaining this shatter zone, which you used to claim was of paramount importance, was never the real goal at all.

---

It's not our job to maintain Russian power on behalf Russia. If they are a paper tiger, they will get the respect due to a paper tiger. That is the fatal flaw in Meirsheimer's argument. It presumes a role for Russia that Russia cannot play.

Russia could have let Ukraine do it's thing....join EU, apply to Nato, etc.....wait for the Zelensky govt to get mired in corruption and lose an election to a more pro-Russian opposition figure.....and then come back to play again another day. Eventually, it would have happened. But Russian arrogance got the better of them. They didn't think they needed to wait. They thought Ukraine would collapse upon first contact. Huge miscalculation on their part. They are going to emerge from the way considerably weaker than they entered it, and likely in an considerably worse geo-political position than when they began.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"Putin continued to claim that NATO's 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no concrete steps towards opening such paths, violated Ukraine's 1991 Declaration of Independence that declared that Ukraine is a neutral state. The Russian Federation, however, had committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," which include Crimea and Donbas, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine's return of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.[12] The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

Where does the Budapest Memorandum say anything about Ukraine choosing its own alignment?

---

It's right there in bold. You must have skipped the "sovereignty" lecture in Poli Sci class.

---

A frivolous argument, as if recognizing Ukraine's independence caused all its commitments to magically disappear.

---

LOL apparently, recognizing Ukrainian independence apparently did cause Russian commitments to magically disappear, given that Ukraine was a neutral state on the day Russia invaded.....

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

He opposed NATO expansion to the far east for decades

He long said trying to bring Ukriane in would spark off conflict (and it did).

Now at the end he might have decided that since the war was here now then NATO might as well absorb Ukraine…but that is him adapting to facts on the ground.

His point still stands about the sensibility of doing it in the first place

---

that's the way a diplomat says "I miscalculated and now have a new position." If Nato membership was a bad idea before the war, how can Nato membership as an outcome of the war be a good thing?

the premise of the realist arguments against Nato expansion are that Russia is an equal power to Nato, and that it has no inherent desire to expand its footprint or influence. Both have been proven categorically wrong.

"Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows."

There are not that many potential invaders of Ukraine.

The US, Germany, Poland. Russia, and the aliens from Independence Day. Nobody else has the necessary combination of thee proximity, the capability to project force, or the military to do it.

So "we could get invaded as a neutral state" isn't a particularly valid concern. When you seek EU and NATO membership, you are not acting as a neutral state.

Realitybites said:

---

"Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows."

There are not that many potential invaders of Ukraine.

The US, Germany, Poland. Russia, and the aliens from Independence Day. Nobody else has the necessary combination of thee proximity, the capability to project force, or the military to do it.

So "we could get invaded as a neutral state" isn't a particularly valid concern. When you seek EU and NATO membership, you are not acting as a neutral state.

---

Five discordant facts: 1) EU is an economic entity, not a foreign policy alliance. 2) EU and Nato are not mirror images of one another (i.e. not all Nato members are full EU members: not all EU members are Nato members). 3) Ukraine did not formally request membership in Nato until after it was invaded. 4) Then-neutral Sweden and Finland had Nato partner status for decades without any protest from Russia. 5) Finland joined the EU without getting invaded by Russia.

Even Russian pre-war ultimatums acknowledge those facts: Russia was not demanding Ukraine withdraw from Nato membership, but rather pledge not to join in the future.

So why was Ukrainian application in the EU such a big deal that it Russia had no choice but to invade?
(answer: it wasn't. it was just a pretext.)

The relationship between Finland and Russia is nothing like that between Ukraine and Russia. And your "this is a ruse, that is a ruse" is just silly. Putin has been up front and transparent about what he is doing and why. Even now with the push into the Kharkov region in the north:

"When asked about Russia's goals there, Putin noted that Ukraine is to blame for recent fighting in the area, as it "unfortunately continues to shell residential blocks in the border areas, including Belgorod."

"Civilians are dying out there. Everything is crystal clear. They are firing directly at the center of the city," the president said, recalling that he had publicly warned Kiev that Russia would be forced to establish a "cordon sanitaire" in the areas under Kiev's control if the attacks continued."

If the Ukrainians have any sense at all, they will knock off the cross border attacks and negotiate a peace treaty. The longer this goes on and the more Russian civilians the UAF attacks, the less of their country they will have left when it is over.

Realitybites said:

---

The relationship between Finland and Russia is nothing like that between Ukraine and Russia. And your "this is a ruse, that is a ruse" is just silly. Putin has been up front and transparent about what he is doing and why. Even now with the push into the Kharkov region in the north:

"When asked about Russia's goals there, Putin noted that Ukraine is to blame for recent fighting in the area, as it "unfortunately continues to shell residential blocks in the border areas, including Belgorod."

"Civilians are dying out there. Everything is crystal clear. They are firing directly at the center of the city," the president said, recalling that he had publicly warned Kiev that Russia would be forced to establish a "cordon sanitaire" in the areas under Kiev's control if the attacks continued."

If the Ukrainians have any sense at all, they will knock off the cross border attacks and negotiate a peace treaty. The longer this goes on and the more Russian civilians the UAF attacks, the less of their country they will have left when it is over.

---

"Stop fighting or get raped harder." Typical vatnik.