And what do you begin the negotiations with anyway? You let Russia keep Crimea but they have to give up the Donetsk and Luhansk "People's Republics"? Ukrainian pre-2014 territorial integrity has to be absolutely non-negotiable, otherwise what's to stop Russia from similarly cleaving off territory from other neighbours in the name of "saving Russophone populations from 'neo-Nazis'/'Banderites'/etc."? This is what terrifies the Baltics, Finnish and Poles more than anyone: if you let them get away with using this propaganda as justification for annexing territory they'll just keep doing it!
I don't see Russia giving up control of Crimea. If there was anything that would lead to them using tactical nuclear weapons, it's probably that. And really, even pre-2014 there wasn't a whole lot of support there for the status quo, so I'm not sure it's really worth the downside risk to try to re-take control of a region that was already pretty iffy on remaining part of Ukraine.
If there is a negotiated settlement, I think it'll probably look something like this:
-status quo on Crimea (Ukraine doesn't recognize Russia's occupation, but doesn't demand it back as part of negotiations)
-large measure of autonomy/independence for the Donbas region, but the area is not absorbed into Russia.
-other occupied areas are returned to Ukraine
-Ukraine pledges to not join NATO and/or host NATO forces/bases
-Ukraine is free to join the EU
-strong security guarantees for Ukraine from NATO
-some sanctions on Russia removed (though I doubt all would be).
People may view that as a failure, but I don't really see any other way out that doesn't either mean a significant risk of escalation or a protracted, years-long conflict with potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. Now obviously Russia has to be willing to negotiate, so if they're not, they're not. But I do think there's a real lack of emphasis from NATO being placed on the importance of diplomacy.
And as for encouraging Russia to do the same later or appeasing them, I don't see Russia being able to rebuild its military during peacetime at remotely the same pace that NATO-supported countries can. If Ukraine had a period of peace, they could fully transition their forces to NATO weapons and get some of the things that the US has been hesitant to supply during an active conflict (ATACMS, F-16s, tanks, etc.). Meanwhile Russia will be incapable of even replacing what they've lost, never mind strengthening their forces.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Is it possible that Noam Chomsky defaults to the counter US opinion even if it makes him look completely out of touch with reality?
Could never be.
If you listen to what he says from 21:30 of the interview onward he lays out what he sees as the broader context of the situation, and I would say it's a perspective that views US foreign policy quite differently from how most understand it in North America but which is not uncommon in the Global South. It's probably more fitting in the US politics thread though as it's much broader issue of US foreign policy than what's going on in Ukraine.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
He's been saying similar things since the beginning. Obviously I don't know the inner workings - but at least publically the position from the US and NATO is that its up to Ukraine to negotiate the terms they want.
I guess you could say that they are influencing Ukraine's position by supply weapons.
For the sake of argument - you negotiate a deal with Russia.
On a scale of 1-10, how much of a fool do you have to be to think Russia will honour the deal?
If you listen to what he says from 21:30 of the interview onward he lays out what he sees as the broader context of the situation, and I would say it's a perspective that views US foreign policy quite differently from how most understand it in North America but which is not uncommon in the Global South. It's probably more fitting in the US politics thread though as it's much broader issue of US foreign policy than what's going on in Ukraine.
I don't think anyone is a stranger to Chomsky's views on US foreign policy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
I don't think anyone is a stranger to Chomsky's views on US foreign policy.
So, I guess you and everyone else on CP would be able to just summarize what he says in that 8 minutes without watching it then? Okay. Cool. So what are your thoughts on it?
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I don't see Russia giving up control of Crimea. If there was anything that would lead to them using tactical nuclear weapons, it's probably that. And really, even pre-2014 there wasn't a whole lot of support there for the status quo, so I'm not sure it's really worth the downside risk to try to re-take control of a region that was already pretty iffy on remaining part of Ukraine.
I don't disagree that Russia won't give up Crimea. In fact at this point I don't see them giving up anything at all, including the Donbass, which is why negotiations would be at an impasse if they were occurring. And I also agree that losing Crimea would make Russia seriously consider the nuclear option.
I agree that the region was "pretty iffy on remaining part of Ukraine" in the first place, but it's the outfall of decades of ethnic cleansing and Russification. As I wrote before, it'll be the same excuse the Russians use to invade other countries with significant Russian minority populations unless you stop it now. (This is what terrifies the Latvians and Estonians more than anyone, as they have (proportionally) even bigger Russian minority populations than Ukraine does...)
Quote:
If there is a negotiated settlement, I think it'll probably look something like this:
-status quo on Crimea (Ukraine doesn't recognize Russia's occupation, but doesn't demand it back as part of negotiations)
-large measure of autonomy/independence for the Donbas region, but the area is not absorbed into Russia.
-other occupied areas are returned to Ukraine
-Ukraine pledges to not join NATO and/or host NATO forces/bases
-Ukraine is free to join the EU
-strong security guarantees for Ukraine from NATO
-some sanctions on Russia removed (though I doubt all would be).
People may view that as a failure...
This is basically what the Minsk Agreements said; it would be pointless for the Ukrainians to agree to this, the essentially-same agreement was already violated. No reason to believe Russia wouldn't just restart the conflict. At best that would be a ceasefire, not a long-term peace agreement, so there's no point in agreeing to it: better to continue to bleed the Russians dry.
Quote:
... I don't really see any other way out that doesn't either mean a significant risk of escalation or a protracted, years-long conflict with potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. Now obviously Russia has to be willing to negotiate, so if they're not, they're not. But I do think there's a real lack of emphasis from NATO being placed on the importance of diplomacy.
A "protracted, years-long conflict with potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths" is probably preferable to Russian occupation. I realize it's easy for me to say because I'm not the one facing down the choice, but if I was Ukrainian, Russian occupation would be a far worse proposition. Die fighting or die under the rule of the most notorious despot on the planet...
Quote:
And as for encouraging Russia to do the same later or appeasing them, I don't see Russia being able to rebuild its military during peacetime at remotely the same pace that NATO-supported countries can. If Ukraine had a period of peace, they could fully transition their forces to NATO weapons and get some of the things that the US has been hesitant to supply during an active conflict (ATACMS, F-16s, tanks, etc.). Meanwhile Russia will be incapable of even replacing what they've lost, never mind strengthening their forces.
I have to believe that if NATO continues to supply Ukraine with weapons then the Russians will never come to the negotiating table, or they would immediately resume hostilities.
The Following User Says Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
Musk has the right to his opinion like anyone else, but considering his direct involvement in China with the Tesla Operations there, when he tells people how Taiwan should agree to allow China to rule over them, its hard to look at what he says as anything other than bought at paid for by the CPP.
Honestly pretty disgusting to even say anything. Taiwan has lived under the threat of China for years now. Things aren't really any different now, in fact one could argue that with the way the US has helped Ukraine, China might be a little more hesitant to do anything with Taiwan than they ever had been before.
With Russia, I think there is concern over how it ends, and I echo a lot of what opendoor is suggesting. Russia sucks, but when a country has nuclear weapons, everything is different.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
If there is a negotiated settlement, I think it'll probably look something like this:
-status quo on Crimea (Ukraine doesn't recognize Russia's occupation, but doesn't demand it back as part of negotiations)
-large measure of autonomy/independence for the Donbas region, but the area is not absorbed into Russia.
-other occupied areas are returned to Ukraine
-Ukraine pledges to not join NATO and/or host NATO forces/bases
-Ukraine is free to join the EU
-strong security guarantees for Ukraine from NATO
-some sanctions on Russia removed (though I doubt all would be).
This is likely a very realistic version of what peace might look like - unfortunately it just kicks the ball down the road. Leaving Russia occupying Crimea without Ukrainian recognition leaves a festering diplomatic sore that would result in war again. Likely each side would take 5-10 years to arm up with the full intention of resuming the conflict.
Neither side can afford the status quo, Russia cant handle Ukraine now when it is mostly using rebuilt Russian equipment, they are well aware that if you give Ukraine a decade to upgrade to western equipment they will be able to roll right into Moscow within a week.
Ukraine comes out of this a military superpower if they dont get wiped out and Russia knows it
I don't see Russia giving up control of Crimea. If there was anything that would lead to them using tactical nuclear weapons, it's probably that. And really, even pre-2014 there wasn't a whole lot of support there for the status quo, so I'm not sure it's really worth the downside risk to try to re-take control of a region that was already pretty iffy on remaining part of Ukraine.
If there is a negotiated settlement, I think it'll probably look something like this:
-status quo on Crimea (Ukraine doesn't recognize Russia's occupation, but doesn't demand it back as part of negotiations)
-large measure of autonomy/independence for the Donbas region, but the area is not absorbed into Russia.
-other occupied areas are returned to Ukraine
-Ukraine pledges to not join NATO and/or host NATO forces/bases
-Ukraine is free to join the EU
-strong security guarantees for Ukraine from NATO
-some sanctions on Russia removed (though I doubt all would be).
People may view that as a failure, but I don't really see any other way out that doesn't either mean a significant risk of escalation or a protracted, years-long conflict with potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. Now obviously Russia has to be willing to negotiate, so if they're not, they're not. But I do think there's a real lack of emphasis from NATO being placed on the importance of diplomacy.
And as for encouraging Russia to do the same later or appeasing them, I don't see Russia being able to rebuild its military during peacetime at remotely the same pace that NATO-supported countries can. If Ukraine had a period of peace, they could fully transition their forces to NATO weapons and get some of the things that the US has been hesitant to supply during an active conflict (ATACMS, F-16s, tanks, etc.). Meanwhile Russia will be incapable of even replacing what they've lost, never mind strengthening their forces.
I suspect you are right on the end point but I don't think Russia would accept it now. They control the vast majority of that region now so why give it up unless the population gets annoyed with the war.
I suspect you are right on the end point but I don't think Russia would accept it now. They control the vast majority of that region now so why give it up unless the population gets annoyed with the war.
the only reason Russia accepts peace is because they fear losing everything, which is what they face now, the problem then though is it leaves Putin's personal position in desperate straits as he and his allies will be blamed, it also leaves a massively stronger Ukraine on their borders, utterly destroys their reputation with their global allies, consigns them forever to China's b**ch status, Europe never relies on them for energy again even if they go back to buying gas and they become the laughing stock of the world, which for Russia is the worst fate of all
