West should build bridges with Russia after end of Ukrainian conflict

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Dutch? Not Much!

Dutch resistance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

and what happened almost 200 years does not matter. If Russian nationals don't like what the Ukis are doing, they can emigrate to Russia.

History Didn't Begin in the 20th Century, Which Was a Blip

That wouldn't have gone over very big if President Polk had told that to the Texans.

 

[peacefan]

Good point

What carrots are being offered to Ukraine to give up fighting for their territory?
What stick is being used against Russia?

that's for the politicians to decide, i think.

 

[peacefan]

So if putin agrees to only steal half of ukraine you’d take the deal?

yep. and it's not even half, just the border-regions in the East and South-East.

 

[peacefan]

The Dutch? Not Much!

stop the generalizing insulting, mr moron.

 

[Mac-7]

yep. and it's not even half, just the border-regions in the East and South-East.

How about we just offer you to the russians and if they will settle for that?

 

[Silver Cat]

Poor logic, Silver Cat, for Texas has been part of the USA for 178 years.

Kiev has been a part of Russia for much more longer time, since, at least, X century, with some periods of Lithuanian, Polish and German occupation.

Ukraine is an independent nation recognized by Russia under international law even though it unlawfully invaded Ukraine.

It was pretending to be an independent nation until it decided to join NATO and start discrimination and genocide of its Russian population. After Ukrainian agression against Russia's allies - DPR and LPR, Russia got a legal right for collective self-defense. You know - "An attack against one of us, means attack against all of us".
And yes, de facto, most of the Russians don't consider The Borderlands (Ukraine in Russian and Polish languages) as an actual state or a nation.

 

[Silver Cat]

Silver Cat overrates Moscow's attack capacity and professional ability.

No. I just soberly rate US deterrence capabilities, including ABD, civil defense, national reserves, NORAD and SBIRS effectiveness and so on... And don't tell me about professional abilities in US State services. They don't value it nowadays at all. Actually, those delusional freaks of nouvelle école don't care about reality at all and, what is even worse, they actively denie that the reality matters.

 

[Silver Cat]

So if putin agrees to only steal half of ukraine you’d take the deal?

It's not about territory at all. It is about demilitarisation of the Eastern and Northern Europe. And it means that the Russians won't agree just to take half of Ukraine.

 

[Silver Cat]

Russia won't win the war because the West's determination will out last Muscovy's base and outside help.
Get rid of Putin and get to making peace.

No. They won't. As they say - if the enemy doesn't surrender, it should be eliminated. And if you want to take Crimea and Novorossia - be ready to lose Alaska and California. Higher stakes means higher possible losses, and I'm not sure, that our cards are good enough to gamble with the national security.

 

[rightwinger]

that's for the politicians to decide, i think.

There is no middle ground

 

[Silver Cat]

José does not set the standards here, just gets to comment like the rest of us. If the US was wrong in 1846, does not mean that is a valid reason for Russia to get its soldiery butts kicked and killed in Ukraine. His analysis does not because Ukraine is independent of Russia in the 21st Century, and what happened almost 200 years does not matter. Russia will be in dire straits by the beginning of summer. If Russian nationals don't like what the Ukis are doing, they can emigrate to Russia.​

Yes. The Russian nationals had emigrated to Russia. And they just took their land with them. The land belongs to people who live and work on it.

 

[luiza]

It's not about territory at all. It is about demilitarisation of the Eastern and Northern Europe. And it means that the Russians won't agree just to take half of Ukraine.

I believe they might have .
Originally Uncle P wanted the four regions that he effectively has now PLUS a coastal land "bridge" taking in Odessa and linking to Moldavia .
He was not totally averse to allowing Poland to retake old currency Galacia and Hungary and Romania retaking old territories
PROVIDING he exerted effectiive control through the "right "military and leaving Kyiv as an isolated enclave .
He will probably still achieve much of that and there is nothing NATO can ultimately do about it because of the Russian colossal advantage in Hyper Missiles plus their vast ground strength spearheaded by their 1B75 Penicillin acoustic-thermal artillery-reconnaissance system. It just picks off enemy motorised vehicles at a distance of 25 miles .

 

[Silver Cat]

I don't care. I am against any 'agreement' with Russia.

And most of the Russians are against any 'agreement' with the Nazies. They just want to kill the beast and eliminate NATO threat. The difference is that Ukraine (with of without the EU) doesn't have a chance to win this war (which means - 1) eliminate Russian nuclear weapons, 2) capture Moscow, 3) crush Russian guerilla resistance) and Russia have pretty good chances to win the war against Ukraine, Poland or even NATO.

 

[rightwinger]

What has Putin’s invasion gotten for Russia?
Are they safer?
Are they better off?

Putin has forced an expansion of NATO at his border
He has isolated his country
He has destroyed his economy
He has exposed his military as poorly trained, poorly equipped, low morale…Not a modern fighting force

 

[Silver Cat]

What has Putin’s invasion gotten for Russia?

Five millions of liberated Russians and land bridge to Crimea.

Are they safer?

Yes.

Are they better off?

For most of them - definitely yes.

Putin has forced an expansion of NATO at his border

And he already eliminated significant amount of NATO military equipment and increased the Russian Army.

He has isolated his country

Sure, not. Actually, he put it in the center of the world's policy.

He has destroyed his economy

No. Russian economy is quite good.

He has exposed his military as poorly trained, poorly equipped, low morale…Not a modern fighting force

Both sides keep their best cards close to chest. It just a foreplay.

 

[rightwinger]

Five millions of liberated Russians and land bridge to Crimea.


Yes.


For most of them - definitely yes.


And he already eliminated significant amount of NATO military equipment and increased the Russian Army.


Sure, not. Actually, he put it in the center of the world's policy.


No. Russian economy is quite good.


Both sides keep their best cards close to chest. It just a foreplay.

Russia has used up their military equipment and has no means of replacing it.
They are weaker

 

[Silver Cat]

Russia has used up their military equipment and has no means of replacing it.
They are weaker

Sure, no. They have plenty of military equipment and they have enough of their industrial capabilities (and/or industrial capabilities of their allies).

 

[ESay]

What has Putin’s invasion gotten for Russia?
Are they safer?
Are they better off?

Putin has forced an expansion of NATO at his border
He has isolated his country
He has destroyed his economy
He has exposed his military as poorly trained, poorly equipped, low morale…Not a modern fighting force

Give it up, dude. Russian propaganda has changed the tune a bit and makes up their narratives 'from the opposite'. Namely, what would have been had Putin the Saviour not started this SMO? NATO's nuclear missiles in Ukraine, biolabs, another 'massacre' in the Donbas by Ukrainian Nazis, etc.

And that doesn't matter how far from the truth that is. You can't argue with someone who uses 'what if' rhetoric.

 

[DudleySmith]

Read the guy's article in the WSJ recently. He does have a point, and yes it will require defeating Putin and his cadre of oligarchs. We need to do for Russia what we did for Germany and Japan and Taiwan. After their criminal hierarchy is executed, of course.