Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[AfonsoAlves]

Maybe that's why you need more spending? Clearly not that intelligent. Others could see it and you couldn't.

Open source political cables, thanks to wikileaks, provide a backdrop where the annexation is a contingency. It wasn't completely unknown. Proven pretty easily.

If everyone could see it why did nobody actually do anything? Ukraine was taken completely off guard as was the military establishment in US and Western Europe. I mean, feck, the AFU basically stood there in their boxers as they watched Crimea fall.

Also, I checked the cables just now. They're leaks from 2006-2009 from various NATO secretaries stating that Crimea was a strategic weakness for Ukraine and that it was severely undermanned and not well positioned for resistance against an attack There's nothing post dating 2009.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Would you settle on: Some analysts worried about that, but it wasn't the accepted majority opinion?

I'll accept that in 2006-2009 some NATO people mentioned that Crimea was a weakness in Ukraine's security apparatus, which is wholly different from what neverdie actually claimed.

 

[neverdie]

1: No proof.
2: Aha, I've checked the proof and it is just... (insert smileys).


No thanks. This is how it goes all the time.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

1: No proof.
2: Aha, I've checked the proof and it is just... (insert smileys).


No thanks. This is how it goes all the time.

This is madness. You're basically claiming that Russia invading Crimea in 2014 was obvious and predictable because some people in 2006-2009 said that Ukraine had strategic weakness there due to multiple reasons such as ethnic divides and pro-Russian seperatism sentiments that existed since 1991, as well as lack of strategic depth and military presence?

This is not how to discuss things.

I can point out to do multiple articles stating how much of a weakness the Baltics are right now. In 5 years time if Russia invades out of madness, do you believe that the Russian invasion was obvious and predictable?

 

[neverdie]

I’m not sure many people from the Baltics would agree with you

That's legitimate. I meant Western Europe (usually the case). But you're right.

The Russian thing followed a very logical (from Russia's view) trajectory. If there was what they considered interference (NATO, whatever), they intervened. Geogia, Transinitra, etc. Then of course, Ukraine. Sphere of influence stuff imo.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

That's legitimate. I meant Western Europe (usually the case). But you're right.

The Russian thing followed a very logical (from Russia's view) trajectory. If there was what they considered interference (NATO, whatever), they intervened. Geogia, Transinitra, etc. Then of course, Ukraine. Sphere of influence stuff imo.

You have a complete lack of understanding of Ukraine, Russia and the whole mentality and mindset that occurs in that region.

 

[neverdie]

This is not how to discuss things.

If whomever you take to be an authority came out and said it blatantly you would find another reason to ignore it. It's how I perceive you to operate whenever you are proven to be wrong (not even entirely wrong, as in some ultimate rhetoric defeat, but jut a little bit wrong with respect to proofs we can all cite and share). If I am wrong, I am wrong, but this kind of "where's the proof, -- ok there is some -- but you cannot call that proof" has been done ad infinitum.

 

[neverdie]

You have a complete lack of understanding of Ukraine, Russia and the whole mentality and mindset that occurs in that region.

And yet everything I have argued with respect to how this war will end has basically come to fruition. The one exception of course is that I never thought Russia would invade. After that, this scenario is exactly what I assumed would happen and that not negotiating earlier was a massive mistake.

Ukraine is the loser here. It was never going to be able to win the war and that was argued by lucid minds since the invasion. The ulterior motives behind the proxy war, which many in high offices now simply call a proxy war (this was forbidden in this thread once upon a time), are also evident. One, bleed an enemy dry at someone else's expense; 2, try to profit from that other nation's expense. It's not just Russia which is fecking with Ukraine here. I mean what is to come next. The private equity destruction of that state.

Rubio has basically called it. What he doesn't say is that it was, after a point in time (somewhere around 2022, toward the end) just an elaborate debt trap. Trump says that pat out loud though.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

If whomever you take to be an authority came out and said it blatantly you would find another reason to ignore it. It's how I perceive you to operate whenever you are proven to be wrong (not even entirely wrong, as in some ultimate rhetoric defeat, but jut a little bit wrong with respect to proofs we can all cite and share). If I am wrong, I am wrong, but this kind of "where's the proof, -- ok there is some -- but you cannot call that proof" has been done ad infinitum.

No, i would not.

My gripe is that the "proof" you posted doesn't actually prove anything, nor does it actually back up your claim that the Crimean invasion was obvious.

It was not obvious to the British military establishment, the NATO military establishment, the French establishment and most importantly, the Ukrainian military establishment.

I operate on facts and not loose interpretation. Highlighting lack of strategic defense in a specific region does not mean "It was obvious Russia was going to invade." Show me facts that people were expecting a Russian invasion of Crimea. "NATO reported that the area was vulnerable" is not "proof" that people were expecting a Russian invasion.

There was a dossier posted a few years ago which showed that the Russian Siberian front is woefully unmanned at the moment and vulnerable. Does this mean that it's "obvious" China is going to invade right now? No.

 

[Lemoor]

And yet everything I have argued with respect to how this war will end has basically come to fruition. The one exception of course is that I never thought Russia would invade. After that, this scenario is exactly what I assumed would happen and that not negotiating earlier was a massive mistake.

What the feck are you talking about. I love that any concept of prediction is just completely meaningless in those fecking discussions. You can spew out 200 million things, include 1 extremely milquetoast vibe and afterwards pretend that you're some sort of fecking Cassandra

 

[neverdie]

What the feck are you talking about. I love that any concept of prediction is just completely meaningless in those fecking discussions. You can spew out 200 million things, include 1 extremely milquetoast vibe and afterwards pretend that you're some sort of fecking Cassandra

Debt-trap, proxy war, Ukraine cannot possibly win, etc.

Things that are all true but were not tolerated at the time. Will become very obvious in the months ahead. A terrible outcome but all predictable.

 

[neverdie]

No, i would not.

My gripe is that the "proof" you posted doesn't actually prove anything, nor does it actually back up your claim that the Crimean invasion was obvious.

It was not obvious to the British military establishment, the NATO military establishment, the French establishment and most importantly, the Ukrainian military establishment.

I operate on facts and not loose interpretation. Highlighting lack of strategic defense in a specific region does not mean "It was obvious Russia was going to invade." Show me facts that people were expecting a Russian invasion of Crimea. "NATO reported that the area was vulnerable" is not "proof" that people were expecting a Russian invasion.

There was a dossier posted a few years ago which showed that the Russian Siberian front is woefully unmanned at the moment and vulnerable. Does this mean that it's "obvious" China is going to invade right now? No.

Not one inch to the East. Forgetting everything about that I just remember that debate with you where you said it was never "said" at all and then I showed you proof after proof (not justifying any invasion, either) and you just ignored it. That's probably where my sense of "impossible, shoe me proof -- this is no proof; smiley face" comes from when we debate. It's recursive. We just don't agree on much and probably best off ignoring each other.

 

[Lemoor]

Debt-trap, proxy war, Ukraine cannot possibly win, etc.

Things that are all true but were not tolerated at the time. Will become very obvious in the months ahead. A terrible outcome but all predictable.

Ah, so literally all talking points that rely on not having one precise, universally accepted definition, but instead on framing and vibes. Cheers.

 

[neverdie]

Ah, so literally all talking points that rely on not having one precise, universally accepted definition, but instead on framing and vibes. Cheers.

Sure, all just vibes and stuff not things that happened here two or three years ago and were called bullshit at the time but are now manifestly correct. Vibes, you know.

 

[Lemoor]

Sure, all just vibes and stuff not things that happened here two or three years ago and were called bullshit at the time but are now manifestly correct. Vibes, you know.

Cool, define those terms precisely in a way that fully tracks with the historical usage then, since it's manifestly correct. After all, nomenclature is the most important part for you.

 

[neverdie]

Cool, define those terms precisely in a way that fully tracks with the historical usage then, since it's manifestly correct. After all, nomenclature is the most important part for you.

Whatever that means I'll agree just to end whatever this is. We agree it's all vibes or something. Not things actually said at the time of the invasion for a long period of time and then left alone because no one wanted to hear them, until now and the next few months where every official from Washington to Moscow will be confirming it as the war comes to an end. It's actually tragic. Ukraine has been destroyed. What comes next is nearly worse than the war but there's no alternative.

 

[Jotun]

Debt-trap, proxy war, Ukraine cannot possibly win, etc.

Things that are all true but were not tolerated at the time. Will become very obvious in the months ahead. A terrible outcome but all predictable.

I've skimmed your posts from first half of 2022 and I can't find any such predictions. Can you please show us exactly what you predicted and then we will evaluate AFTER the peace treaty is done.

 

[Lemoor]

Whatever that means I'll agree just to end whatever this is. We agree it's all vibes or something. Not things actually said at the time of the invasion for a long period of time and then left alone because no one wanted to hear them, until now and the next few months where every official from Washington to Moscow will be confirming it as the war comes to an end. It's actually tragic. Ukraine has been destroyed. What comes next is nearly worse than the war but there's no alternative.

Ah yes, love the definition pedant that brings up the importance of nomenclature everytime until getting called out and then finally admittin that the nomenclature never mattered in the first place. Certified classic.
Now, for instance, we can talk about the negotiations earlier? Do you think Ukraine was unwilling to negotiate before invasion or in the first years of invasion? What where the Russian demads, after all you must be able to establish it if you know that it was wrong to not fully go into that direction.

 

[neverdie]

I've skimmed your posts from first half of 2022 and I can't find any such predictions. Can you please show us exactly what you predicted and then we will evaluate AFTER the peace treaty is done.

Just the proxy war stuff and that Ukraine cannot possibly win. I posted that many times. I stopped posting here for a good reason. That was considered insanity at that time. I'm not posting here to say "I win" (there's nothing to win) but only because what many people at that time said has come to fruition and it was all predicted.

I don't just post here. The debt-trap stuff was posted elsewhere and I don't see a need to bring it in except to give context to what is going on when you hear Graham and Trump speak of Ukraine's resources and offering 50% deals. And a great many of those posts were deleted, probably wisely at the time, for being too off-topic or "whataboutery". They were not, is the point I now make. They bore directly upon what was happening, is happening, and what the outcome will be.

 

[neverdie]

Do you think Ukraine was unwilling to negotiate before invasion or in the first years of invasion?

No. That's the tragedy to me. They were negotiating and it was torpedoed by London and later Washington. It would have been a loss either way, no one pretends otherwise, but much lesser a loss had it stopped at that juncture. And London and Washington knew this. Anyone who thinks the people in Washington and so forth weren't entirely cognizant that Ukraine would never win doesn't listen to them speak or read their articles which are posted for all to see. Now Rubio says something like "we lied to people by letting on that Ukraine could win" and people either ignore that or place it on him when it was the standard (but never published) opinion (and it went back a decade in that think-tank area, as far back as Obama at any rate).

 

[Balljy]

I can point out to do multiple articles stating how much of a weakness the Baltics are right now. In 5 years time if Russia invades out of madness, do you believe that the Russian invasion was obvious and predictable?

The timeline might be too short, but Russia will certainly look to take more of the Baltics if they can recover enough economically from Ukraine and Putin is in power long enough. Non-NATO members are basically a free pass.

 

[africanspur]

Europe could easily have a much stronger army without spending more. It would "only" need to become as efficient as the Israeli army.

Which is a massive change, but it would be possible if the politicial will is there. Which it isn't, because still nobody feels the urgency to move in that direction.

Hmm it could have a stronger army but it's worth pointing out that Israel almost uniformly spends >5% of its GDP on on the military, has compulsory military service and seems to paint almost every conflict as an existential battle for their people's very survival.

All of that might potentially be sellable to the citizens of Poland or Latvia. I think you'd have a much harder time convincing the citizens of Spain or the UK for example that the level of threat to them warranted the above.

 

[Jotun]

No. That's the tragedy to me. They were negotiating and it was torpedoed by London and later Washington.

What were the Ukraine and Russia negotiating about? What were the demands? And how was it torpedoed by washington and london?

 

[Lemoor]

No. That's the tragedy to me. They were negotiating and it was torpedoed by London and later Washington. It would have been a loss either way, no one pretends otherwise, but much lesser a loss had it stopped at that juncture. And London and Washington knew this. Anyone who thinks the people in Washington and so forth weren't entirely cognizant that Ukraine would never win doesn't listen to them speak or read their articles which are posted for all to see. Now Rubio says something like "we lied to people by letting on that Ukraine could win" and people either ignore that or place it on him when it was the standard (but never published) opinion (and it went back a decade in that think-tank area, as far back as Obama at any rate).

Again. What were Putin's demands at the time where negotiations were allegedly bombed by Johnson's tweets, who is apparently a literal God to Ukrainians. And did they bomb the negotiations before the invasion too?

 

[neverdie]

What were the Ukraine and Russia negotiating about? What were the demands? And how was it torpedoed by washington and london?

That brief window before Boris Johnson flew over. It's on the record but basically a cessation. The talks were nascent but bombed.

As for the demands, look at what is going to happen: Russia will take nearly a third of that nation. And it won't be given back. Those would not (were not) the talking points re negotiation in 2022. It was a lot more like keeping the separatist areas and no NATO. Tiny in comparison to what Russia will actually take whether there is a treaty or not.

 

[VorZakone]

That brief window before Boris Johnson flew over. It's on the record but basically a cessation. The talks were nascent but bombed.

As for the demands, look at what is going to happen: Russia will take nearly a third of that nation. And it won't be given back. Those would not (were not) the talking points re negotiation in 2022. It was a lot more like keeping the separatist areas and no NATO. Tiny in comparison to what Russia will actually take whether there is a treaty or not.

Nothing was "torpedoed" by Boris. Ukrainian negotiators like Arakhamia have explained that Ukraine wasn't given security guarantees by the West during those early 2022 and that (partially) made the Ukrainians wary of accepting a deal.

Negotiations continued into May if I recall correctly, longer than people thought. Even after the discovery of Bucha and the "Boris moment" negotiations continued.

 

[stefan92]

Hmm it could have a stronger army but it's worth pointing out that Israel almost uniformly spends >5% of its GDP on on the military, has compulsory military service and seems to paint almost every conflict as an existential battle for their people's very survival.

All of that might potentially be sellable to the citizens of Poland or Latvia. I think you'd have a much harder time convincing the citizens of Spain or the UK for example that the level of threat to them warranted the above.

I didn't mean we should spend 5% and become a highly militarized society like Israel. The idea simply is: look at the budget and how big their operational army is. And you will see they get much more bang for the buck (literally) than all European armies. We should aim to replicate that, even with "just" 2% Europe could get a really powerful army.

 

[VorZakone]

Johnson (and other Western countries) didn't give Ukraine what it wanted. That's not really the same as torpedoing a deal.

 

[ExoduS]

What is a security guarantee? If Ukraine will not be in NATO - that means no article 5. So security guarantee has to be something in between article 5 and what Ukraine received as aid thus far in this war. But what would happen in practice if this war comes to an end and Russia invades again?

 

[Lemoor]

That brief window before Boris Johnson flew over. It's on the record but basically a cessation. The talks were nascent but bombed.

And yet they were going on before, during and after his visit. "Basically a cessation" and "nascent but bombed" have zero evidence apart from the fact that you really want them to be true to save your ego.

 

[stefan92]

What is a security guarantee? If Ukraine will not be in NATO - that means no article 5. So security guarantee has to be something in between article 5 and what Ukraine received as aid thus far in this war. But what would happen in practice if this war comes to an end and Russia invades again?

Essentially troops on the ground, so that a new attack would mean that Russia has to attack soldiers from the US, UK, Germany, France and other EU/NATO countries.

Would be weaker than full article 5 protection under NATO treaty or even EU treaty, but would be a deterrent.

 

[TheGame]

Fecking Lavrov the Cnut banning Europe from the negotiating table because shock horror they might actually stick up for Ukraine. That Cnut like Putin deserves his just desserts.

 

[neverdie]

Nothing was "torpedoed" by Boris. Ukrainian negotiators like Arakhamia have explained that Ukraine wasn't given security guarantees by the West during those early 2022 and that (partially) made the Ukrainians wary of accepting a deal.

Negotiations continued into May if I recall correctly, longer than people thought. Even after the discovery of Bucha and the "Boris moment" negotiations continued.

Why weren't they given security guarantees? Who benefit(s)?

I see the US benefiting and the EU benefiting and the Russians, obviously (having taken that much land), all benefiting to the detriment of Ukraine. And yet there isn't a different answer because you cannot change the facts on the ground.

I believe the US and UK/EU wanted Ukraine to do what it did (and Ukraine would always defend itself but that's how you get a proxy war) but always knew it could not win (stated well before any invasion ever happened: the Obama doctrine if you like).

Private equity funds, which Starmer is basically owned by, like Vanguard and Blackrock will own what will probably be some form of South Korean Ukraine. That's a dire outcome unless you're in the EU/US/UK and basically allow these groups to do what they want. Also, of course, Russia will take an enormous amount of land because it just isn't going to budge

 

[Jotun]

Why weren't they given security guarantees? Who benefit(s)?

I see the US benefiting and the EU benefiting and the Russians, obviously (having taken that much land), all benefiting to the detriment of Ukraine. And yet there isn't a different answer because you cannot change the facts on the ground.

I believe the US and UK/EU wanted Ukraine to do what it did (and Ukraine would always defend itself but that's how you get a proxy war) but always knew it could not win (stated well before any invasion ever happened: the Obama doctrine if you like).

So you are saying Ukraine hasn't benefitted from the western help in this war. Are you serious?

That brief window before Boris Johnson flew over. It's on the record but basically a cessation. The talks were nascent but bombed.

When was that exactly?

As for the demands, look at what is going to happen: Russia will take nearly a third of that nation. And it won't be given back. Those would not (were not) the talking points re negotiation in 2022. It was a lot more like keeping the separatist areas and no NATO. Tiny in comparison to what Russia will actually take whether there is a treaty or not.

Are you sure about that? What else?

 

[VorZakone]

Why weren't they given security guarantees? Who benefit(s)?

I see the US benefiting and the EU benefiting and the Russians, obviously (having taken that much land), all benefiting to the detriment of Ukraine. And yet there isn't a different answer because you cannot change the facts on the ground.

I believe the US and UK/EU wanted Ukraine to do what it did (and Ukraine would always defend itself but that's how you get a proxy war) but always knew it could not win (stated well before any invasion ever happened: the Obama doctrine if you like).

I just wanted to point out that the "Boris torpedoed Ukraine" narrative does not correspond with all the info we have so far.

As for why they weren't given security guarantees, I guess there are all kinds of reasons. No one wants to give it bilaterally first and foremost, it has to be through NATO. And even then some members don't want Ukraine in NATO so that's not happening either.

 

[ExoduS]

Essentially troops on the ground, so that a new attack would mean that Russia has to attack soldiers from the US, UK, Germany, France and other EU/NATO countries.

Would be weaker than full article 5 protection under NATO treaty or even EU treaty, but would be a deterrent.

That will be expensive. Troops would need to be stationed in Ukraine for at least a decade or at least until Putin dies. However, Putin dying will not change "Russian strategic interests".

 

[neverdie]

So you are saying Ukraine hasn't benefitted from the western help in this war. Are you serious?

Where did I say that? I said it has different motives. You call it help, and you will take whatever you can get in their position, no one denies it, but I call it a debt-trap when you have 0 chance of winning the war and 100% chance of depleting hundreds of billions worth of materiel.

There was always an ice-cold approach. This far but not that far. It, the West, was never going to directly confront Russia or cross too many actual redlines but by accountancy alone it seems to me that they just made a debt-trap and now it is spoken of openly by Trump, Graham, etc. I don't think it's controversial.

It was/is a proxy war and the proxy was/is Ukraine. It received military aid but when the one giving you that aid is never going to give you a guarantee I think you can rightly question their long-term motives whilst also saying, from the Ukrainian pov, that the military aid was needed, too.

 

[neverdie]

I just wanted to point out that the "Boris torpedoed Ukraine" narrative does not correspond with all the info we have so far.

As for why they weren't given security guarantees, I guess there are all kinds of reasons. No one wants to give it bilaterally first and foremost, it has to be through NATO. And even then some members don't want Ukraine in NATO so that's not happening either.

Fair enough.

It will be, as most/all wars, told in years to come in much more nuance than we get when people are being propaganized to the high heavens due to time concerns.

 

[stefan92]

That will be expensive. Troops would need to be stationed in Ukraine for at least a decade or at least until Putin dies. However, Putin dying will not change "Russian strategic interests".

Which might be part of the reason why it so far didn't happen.

 

[Lemoor]

Fair enough.

It will be, as most/all wars, told in years to come in much more nuance than we get when people are being propaganized to the high heavens due to time concerns.

And in the meantime you will be filling the blanks yourself however you want, ignoring everything that doesn't fit your one narrative and complain that other people are toxic in the discourse.