Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

Podge_irl

Given Putin's past utterances in respect of his position as regards Ukraine, not to mention his actions in Georgia and Syria, is it not conceivable that, at the very least, The US was taking a massive gamble in their support for Ukraine?

There is a perfectly valid equal reading that you are taking a massive gamble by not supporting them given that background. That Russian aggression was inevitable as they are a bad actor in the region and it is better that Ukraine can at least competently defend itself.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118826176#Comment_118826176

And that such weaponry etc would deter Russia from attempting to invade Ukraine... because of the level of casualties Russia would incur.

A weak Ukraine would be unable to resist Russian domination and puppet ruler.

Manach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118820996#Comment_118820996

TBF compared to Thucydides he is a ray of sunshine: "The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." which is sadly apropos for this conflcit.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825781#Comment_118825781

Hunter Biden is a recovering crackhead who was peddling his family's name for a paycheque. He has and had zero hold or influence on the American state policy to Ukraine. His career consisted of him larping as a fixer and promising to make introductions and failing to deliver. He was thoroughly quarantined from his father and the Obama administration. Joseph Biden is a remarkably patient father given his son's sad addictions and I credit him for it, but he's not his son's keeper.

Some of the scuzziest elements of the right wing Trumpite press are trying to implicate Joe Biden in his son's dealings. It's right-wing gutter black propaganda.

fryup

Would Putin be tempted to nuke Brussels knowing that all the NATO leaders are there??? i wouldn't put it past him

Nordner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118826760#Comment_118826760

Ok, so, that may be the case, but why was The New York Post story about the laptop banned by Twitter and any and all discussion in relation to Hunters mis-deeds branded conspiracy theories and shut down in the run up to the 2020 election? Smacks of censorship to me. To ensure there was no negative impact to Biden's campaign.

Tis all out in the open now again when it can't do as much damage to Daddy.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad Trump got dumped, but am no fan of Biden either. As Gore Vidal once said, " America is a one party state with two wings, Republican and Democrat "

The whole left and right dichotomy is redundant at this stage. Has been since Clinton, Blair era. Democrats and Labour no longer represent working people. They are funded by the same special interest groups as Republicans and Tories. Corporations and billionaires hedging their bets by donating to both sides....

Just look at how Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn got fucked over to ensure they never got a fair crack of the whip. Heaven forbid anyone with genuine motives ever gets into a position of power. No good for business.

liamtech

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118825781#Comment_118825781

HEY - sorry im coming and going - family event tomorrow lol

On US involvement – I now feel that you have fallen in to a trap of equating

• Russian Involvement in the Ukraine -Covertly, and as a dishonest actor
• US involvement in the Ukraine -for the most part Overt – invited in to do so by the Ukraine

Now you cite the various things the US did in Ukraine. Yes they trained and armed the Ukrainian Army, provided financial assistance, and yes, being a capitalist world power, they partook in the usual business dealings. Now some may call this American Imperialism, and point of fact, i probably would have agreed. But ask yourself a question. Why did America do this? Well we can answer that by saying that nearly all of the time, they were asked to do so.

Why would Ukraine ask the United States to do so? Because they felt threatened by Russia. You yourself point out that US dealings in Ukraine ‘ramped up’ after 2014. Of course it did, it was a Ukrainian response to the seizure of Crimea, and Russia kicking off a proxy war in the East. Their sovereignty was violated by Russia, and Russian aided militia.

As for your analogies RE Russia/China in North Korea et al – look its not bad, but its not great. With respect, consider the Position Ukraine finds itself in.

• Small country with hostile large neighbor
• Sovereignty violated overtly and openly
• Bully like tactics telling Ukraine it has limits on what it is allowed to do
• Ukraine needed to balance against this (ala neo-realism i might add)-
• The need an equally big player to step into their corner – enter NATO

As to the US ‘taking a gamble’ - no. They weren’t. Their help was requested by a struggling democracy, which was being threatened by a large dictatorship. The Balance of Power situation prior to US assistance being given, was ASYMMETRIC – in favor of Russia. The US merely steadied the scale.

What we are witnessing is the obvious evidence that Russia views the world in terms of neighborhoods. Despite the fact that the Ukraine is NO THREAT WHAT SO EVER to Russia – they have ‘decided’ that it is not good enough, and being within what the Kremlin views as its neighborhood, has consequences.

And we are where we are. So in effect Russia caused Ukraine to seek help. And when they received it, Russia was unhappy. And now we are seeing the consequences of that

RE the Moral Gap

I think the question on terrorism is a segway, but il elaborate by saying that i have viewed terrorism as a catch all term, for a large number of different non state actor groups. If you looked at the IRA for example, how they behaved. Yes collateral damage occurred but was arguably not the goal. Military and state targets were choice for the group during the troubles. So the aforementioned ‘hypothetical magic bullet’ would be deployed predictably. (All military personnel etc)

Take ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and we are dealing with something different. Considering that ISIS in many of their moods, have declared war on Israel, the US, Arab regimes in MENA, ‘crusader countries’ (aka Christianity) – suddenly what it is that constitutes a ‘legitimate target’, becomes a very expansive topic. They wage their campaign along true terroristic lines – that is ‘to terrorize’ their adversary, hoping to elicit a response (as was the case with 9/11 – designed to trigger a war with the west – Al-Qaeda had prepared for war in Afghanistan. I did extensive research on this in college btw, but a chat for another day)

In terms of the US always exacting, shall we call it a toll? So in that, yes they arrive, conduct a war, and then companies come along and ‘develop’ the regions. Yes, that happens. That is expected, and is often welcome. Look at Vietnam for example. South Vietnam is often ridiculed as a disgrace of a western puppet. THE WORST perhaps. And yes maybe it was at a Top Down level. Corruption was rampant. The South Vietnamese Government was corrupt to the core. But the actual cities, the people, the media, and freedoms, actually existed. Right until the North Vietnamese, seized Saigon. Renamed it Ho Chi Minh City, and threw everyone into re-education camps. The people of South Vietnam had an imperfect but at least partially free country - replaced, by something perhaps worse than Stalinism.

Listen, part of me hates capitalism @Nordner – and that part of me is about to have a nervous breakdown, given what I am about to type.

Capitalism, for all its flaws – works. I would want to temper it with Social democracy – ABSOLUTELY 100% and you and I could talk about this for hours (unless we fall out which im hoping we wont)

Take the Ukraine, US Supported freedom, under Russia, or a puppet – a ghastly hypothetical but lets do it

• Option 1 – Ukraine survives with Western/NATO/US help – lets assume relatively intact (if it turns into Afghanistan in the process of ridding itself of Russia, it can be rebuilt, as was Europe in 1945). It becomes a European capitalist democracy, with a Starbucks on every corner. And US Companies having exclusive rights to mine for oil, and gas. (I know you hate this part as do i) - but its free - if you dont like it - leave, or join a social democratic party
• Option 2 – Ukraine is Annexed into Russia – Ukrainians are told they are Russian, and over a protracted period of time, its history and culture are erased. Speaking about the war is punishable by imprisonment (look at Poland under Soviet domination for precedents) – protest is forbidden. Elections are staged. Keep your head down, your mouth shut. And you are ‘free’. If your wishes conflict with those of the state. Unfortunate for you – change your wishes, and speak of this ‘childishness and factionalism’ no more
• Option 3 – Ukraine as a Satellite – Same as above, but worse. Putin is content for a Lukashenko like character to turn Ukraine into his own personal Palace. Less ‘freedom’ then in Russia – corruption is a way of life. Secret police ‘stazi like’ in their extremes patrol the streets. History is rewritten to exonerate the ‘brave neighborly Russians’ who ‘liberated poor Ukraine from a mediocre existence as slaves to the US’

We dont live in an ideal world. You and I are lucky that our country is as it is. Of the options above, there is only one I would choose. And i would bet my moderate savings that every single Ukrainian would make the same choice. And if it means the Americans get some gas, some oil, and we have to endure Starbucks – guess what! Its a free country, dont drink coffee in Starbucks if you dont want to.

Also, take note of the ENORMOUS MORAL GAP that emerges if you play this out – its there, its real – and the US no matter how many failings it has (selfish, rampant capitalism, arrogant) – the US is on the right side of that gap -

Finally on Iraq – listen that was always going to be a disaster. The US had no plan for dealing with the religious sectarianism they let lose upon Saddam’s death. Heck most Americans dont even fully understand it themselves (Sunni, Wahhabi Sunni, Shiah, etc) – Saddam was a warden of a prison state. The US killed the Warden – and terrible things happened, and will happen. Its just that terrible things were already happening. The New Militant Atheist ‘Hawk like’ liamo, would say that as long as religion remains as fundamentalist as it is – stay away, and encourage moderation and secularization – unfortunately Oil and the geostrategic situation RE China, means the region will remain important. Its a whole other chat that we could have and TBH – i dont think its 100% relevant to this war.

All i can say is citing the US/IRAQ/WMD fiasco, in relation to this current situation - is exactly what Putin wants us to do. The US invaded and toppled a tyrant using dishonest reasoning. Shocking!! In response Putin is gonna invade and topple a democracy using dishonest reasoning. We who are angry at what the US did; are meant to create discord among western condemnation, at what Russia is doing - RIGHT NOW!!

its nonsense imho

happy to keep the debate going – i may have missed some points, - i feel i could have said more but perhaps il reply again when im more awake - im VERY tired lol, i have another family fiasco myself in the morning – but i will respond asap if you want to continue – and i hope u do

Liamo:~)

PS - had to edit a few things - my crappy chromebook is inferior to my usual desktop lol

Nordner

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

So US armed Ukraine to the teeth and trained their army in order that they could fend off Russian aggression or at least ensure Putin's troops would face heavy losses when they inevitably invaded...your logic, not mine.

And still the US remains blameless?

Could they not have negotiated a lasting peace with Russia long before now? And, if not, why not?

Because they were willing to toss the dice on this and risk nuclear war? For the greater good or for democracy?

Gambling with all our lives, that's what they are doing.

The greater good will not be worth much if their bet doesn't pay off and we are all obliterated....

liamtech

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827048#Comment_118827048

With the caveat that i am tired - i shall respond

Yes - the US are blameless - as hard as it is to wrap your head around this - yes - they are - They were ASKED TO HELP - BECAUSE - Russia invaded in 2014.

Could they not have negotiated a lasting peace with Russia long before now? And, if not, why not?

Because that glorious world that some people imagine we live in with unicorns, and pixies, and freedom from tyranny and or capitalism - doesnt EXIST

Russia is a great power - run by a dictator - They have proven they need to be treated with suspicion, and distrust - that is the image they have projected. They CANNOT BE TRUSTED -

• Imagine Ireland getting attacked by the UK. Lets say they seized Donegal?
• Now imagine Ireland asking the French for help - and the french give us what they can. Weapons, armaments, training
• Now imagine the UK comes back a few years later and invades the whole country

WOULD YOU BLAME FRANCE - HONESTLY @Nordner - answer the above question directly for sanity sake

Look i wanna remain genuine, and sincere but i cannot accept your version of the narrative - it is FACTUALLY wrong - glarringly so - also please, i spent an hour and a half typing my last response, and you seem desperate to zone in on one or two things -

anyway - lets keep going - im still awake

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827048#Comment_118827048

Ukraine was never going to invade Russia, the weapons and training they received was to allow them defend themselves but was nowhere near enough to launch an invasion (see Russia's much larger military struggling in their invasion of the much smaller country that is Ukraine).

Being able to defend yourself is not an invitation for someone to attack you, by that logic everyone is allowed to attack Russia because they have built up their military and nuclear capabilities on the basis of defence (they'd have us believe that they wouldn't countenance attacking another country!). If Russia would operate within its own borders, they would have nothing to worry about. The problem is they use all sorts of nonsensical reasons to go beyond the well established borders.

The obvious question to your claim that the west "tossed the dice" here and are implicit in what has happened is; to what end? What has anyone, anywhere, gained from this? You expect us to believe that the west orchestrated this and created the current situation but did so despite their being no benefits in doing so. Up until now, the west has willingly traded with and funded the grotesquely corrupt Russian state, if they wanted to damage Russia they could have gradually cut ties in a managed way without orchestrating an invasion of Ukraine, creating a refugee crisis and imposing sudden economic shocks which they weren't prepared for.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827048#Comment_118827048

"Could they not have negotiated a lasting peace with russia long before now? And if not, why not?"

Could you try to answer your own question before you throw out accusations about blaming the US.

And no, what you provided in that post isn't even the beginning of an answer.

Any pushback against any Russian action anywhere in the world risks nuclear war.

If the Baltic states were invaded? Or Poland? or Germany?

Would the US be blameless in that situation in that situation if they responded?

The line has to be drawn somewhere against nuclear blackmail.

Any legitimate Russian concerns about what offensive weapons could be stationed in Ukraine could have been dealt with at a summit - taking into account baltic states, belarus, kalingrad etc. Such a summit was planned - Russia chose war. The US is blameless.

Nordner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827080#Comment_118827080

Ok, you make some really good points. Especially as regards the oppression of dissent in both Russia and its lap dog Belarus.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you and most of the other guys on here seem to be looking at the Ukraine situation through the lens of the colour revolutions in Poland and other former Soviet states.

Which is grand, as far as it goes, because who would not want to help these people achieve freedom and take them out from under the yoke of their Russian overlords?

I remain of the opinion that, regardless of whether Ukraine asked for Western assistance (which they obviously did), the US and NATO understood the likely implications and outcomes of providing such assistance, i.e, where we find ourselves today.

As regards there being no benefit to US/NATO in aiding Ukraine and bringing them into the Western fold...come on, surely that is undeniable?

1. Ukraine is of major strategic importance in terms of its proximity to Russia. Stick a bunch of defensive missile batteries in there (which can become offensive at the flick of a switch) and the Russians are effectively surrounded with Belarus in the west and North Korea in the East its only buffers against Nato or US allies.

2. Ukraine has vast quantities of mineral wealth, fossil fuels etc.

3. As seen in rising food prices, it is also majorly important in the production of cereal crops, providing 10% of global flour supplies.

We may very well be seeing the death throws of Putin's regime play out in Ukraine. Perhaps all the death, destruction and general carnage will be worth that outcome, who knows?

But to claim that any of this was not 100% predictable is just outright nonsense. No offense intended.

I will concede that some of my views are biased, but sure, whose aren't?

I have previously stated that I am grateful to be living under the Western Sphere of influence. Hence we can discuss difficult issues more or less openly without fear of being locked up or otherwise penalised.

That being said, we are, unfortunately, becoming more and more constrained in our discourse for fear of being 'cancelled' for going against the approved narrative.

This was already apparent in terms of the Trans debate. Just ask J.K Rowling or Graham Linehan.

However, this has really crystallised this past two years in terms of the many opinions or even just questions that were deemed verbotten by various authorities throughout the pandemic.

No need to go into any details as the examples of such are so blatantly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. But see the attempted cancellation of Joe Rogan for reference.

I am still quite put out over the myriad of costly tribunals we have held here in this country over the past 30 years, where corruption was shown to be rampant, but none of the perpetrators were ever properly taken to task.

Throw in a touch (pardon the pun) of Clerical abuse, half a pound of horsemeat scandal and a sprinkle of bailed out banks, unaccountable ratings agencies, regulators, Ministers and failed property developers and its quite a stodgy old Irish Stew!

Question everything, is what I am saying. Especially authority because they have proven time and again to be untrustworthy, self-serving, money hungry, psychopaths.

It is against that background that I refuse to accept the approved narrative in relation to the situation in Ukraine. The truth is seldom simple.

Nordner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827080#Comment_118827080

France did assist Ireland several times in our struggle against the British. As one Catholic nation to another opposing a mutual, protestant enemy.

Parts of protestant East Donegal were intended to be part of Northern Ireland along with similar areas of North Monaghan in exchange for majority Catholic areas in South Armagh, West Tyrone and Derry. A shame the Border Commission never got round to doing it...maybe the Troubles would not have materialised or lasted so long if they had.

By the same token, should the majority Russian areas in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea not be allowed merge with Russia? Surely this would go a long way towards stabilizing the remainder of Ukraine in that the vast majority of the population would be pro-western?

Without a sizeable Russian minority there would therefore be far less justification for Russia to meddle in their affairs.

As for Crimea, The Russian Black Sea Fleet traces its roots back to late 18th century and they had agreed a lease with Ukraine for Sevastopol until at least 2045. Small wonder they annexed Crimea in 2014!

Should GB give back Gibraltar to Spain? The US return their dubious internment camp in Guantanamo to Cuba? The Spanish give up their enclaves in Morocco?

Hong Kongs return to China has not worked out too well so far....

Manach

Well, it is not as if the US has a long standing policy of forbiddening non-Western Hemispheric powers intervention in its zone of influence. Wait, that would be the Monroe Doctrine.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118827048#Comment_118827048

Just because you help a neighbour prepare for a storm doesn't make you responsible for the storm when it comes.

An over-simplification for sure , but fundamentally all of the actions taken by Ukraine (and by extension the US et al) have been predicated on the words and actions of Russia.

Everything that has happened in Ukraine over the last 10 years or so is as a direct result of Russian behaviour.

Putin was terrified of the Maidan Revolution - He viewed a democratic uprising that close to his door as an existential threat to him and his cronies and everything he has done since has been exclusively about stopping Ukraine from being able to move forward on the pathway to Democracy.

He and he alone carries the blame here.

FurrySlippers

Regarding "negotiating with Russia", they have consistently lied prior to the invasion. Putin wants some, or all of his 1989 map back. Probably not Poland, but definitely the Baltics.

Ukraine has shown that his army is much weaker than anyone thought.

So where is the "golden bridge to retreat" for him? He could declare the Donbas region as Russian, keep the (now ruined) Mariopol land bridge to Crimea, and call it a day. Claim his objective of protecting ethnic Russians a success.

That is where this may end. But it leaves Russia a pariah. Putin is OK with that.

Where that leaves Ukraine and Moldova, and the baltics is basically as NATO frontiers. No way the terrible concession above can be accepted by any outside Ukraine, without a massive military wall in Ukraine.

Whether Ukraine could accept partition is another question altogether.

Brussels Sprout

Russian state media is actually showing the current state of Mariupol....but with a twist:

https://twitter.com/maryilyushina/status/1506952421599330307

I know, I know that people are brain-washed by disinformation and it's extremely powerful but my god! Showing someone this and saying that it's entirely down to one side is stretching credibility and logic to levels that should not be possible.

They are effectively saying:

1. The Russian army "liberated" this city
2. However they did not destroy any of the buildings
3. No, instead the Ukrainians did to spite the Russians (or something)
4. ????????
5. Oh while we're pushing our luck no civilians were targeted by Russia - that was those Ukrainians too....or the Azov Battalion were using their buildings so they were actually legitimate targets

Russians are well educated people. They should not be swallowing this nonsense. It should be insulting their intelligence. Unless, they want it to be true as much as the Kremlin wills it to be so. Some part of them knows the truth but they push that down far away so that they don't have to look in the collective mirror and see the ugly monster that is modern day Russia. No, instead they can believe the myth, the fantasy that Russia is Great and Glorious just like in 1945. Glory to Russia!

Gatling

For those who think Nato get involved this is what they have built up and ready to go ,and from what we've seen of the Russian military might over the last month it's not going to end well for Russian forces currently inside ukraine,it might be time for the status in kalingrad to change too

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118828400#Comment_118828400

I think there would be a very real danger of a civil war if the Ukrainian government accepted the loss of all of that territory (no access to the sea of Azov). It wouldn't be unlike what happened in Ireland after the Anglo-Irish treaty was signed in 1921.

Aside: You really took your time waiting to write your first post!

beggars_bush

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118828487#Comment_118828487

sleeper account.

FurrySlippers

Never good to rush things. Was here decade ago, but left.. so a rejoin.

Don't think there would be a civil war. Ukraine is too damaged, plus, they will want to continue to garner sympathy and also rebuild and reform and push EU membership.

None of the above discounts the utter awfulness of partition. It's an Irish forum. We know all about occupation and abandonment.

Nordner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118828336#Comment_118828336

I already said it was an existential threat to Russia having a successful democracy on its doorstep. Just like having a successful socialist or social democratic country on US doorstep is not tolerated. See Venezuela, Cuba et all.

Your post supports my original position. That the US knew precisely what they were doing in Ukraine and the likely Russian reaction.

Surely there was a better way to resolve the issue than allowing things to escalate to the degree to which they now have.

The fact that neither the US nor Ukraine were willing to countenance any compromise with Putin as regards Crimea or Donbas just goes to show that this is the outcome they expected.

End of the day, as you say yourself, Putin will probably have to settle for Donbas, Crimea and land bridge in between including Mariupol.

Could a similar deal have not been made without all the bloodshed? Of course it could but, seemingly, none of the parties involved seriously bothered their holes trying.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118828001#Comment_118828001

You continue to use the inevitability of Russian aggression to blame the victims of that aggression for it occurring. Georgia and Syria posed no threat to Russia and look what happened to them.

Also, as regards the benefits of Ukraine being in the "Western Fold"

1. You seem to be classifying the Western fold as normalised relations with the vast majority of the developed countries of the world. That is objectively a good thing and something many countries strive for. It is not coming under the control of some external force
2. We already had access to their minerals and food - we bought them. Were they in the EU we would continue to have to buy them.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118829698#Comment_118829698

Putin initiated the bloodshed, you can hide your blatant whataboutery behind as many words as you want its still there plain for all to see when you claim its anyone but putin who is wholely responsible for this atrocity

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118829698#Comment_118829698

What this amounts to is saying that if you attended a self defence course, and are attacked on the way home and fight back, that your instructor is somehow 'responsible' for what happens next... never mind you might have fought back without having attended the self defence course. Never mind all moral responsibility lies with the attacker.

Your own post contradicts itself. Putin will probably have to settle for those territories.

Settle. That's not what Putin wanted when he launched the invasion.

It took the bloodshed to get him to settle, to preserve Ukranian sovereignty which Putin has declared he does not respect.

He demanded demilitarization - not merely neutrality.

He demanded they not join any blocs - including the EU.

There is zero reason to suppose if the West and Ukraine acquiesced to Russian demands that that would be the end of them. Zero.

Again, you make statements like "Of course it could" and then don't justify it. Or explain how it would have meant a lasting peace and not merely postponed the invasion.

Either you accept Ukraine has the right to defend itself against Russian aggression, and be supported by the US etc in this, or you do not.

Whatever comes next - the attacker is responsible for. Talking about US 'responsibility' for this is just using playing semantic games.

Nordner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118829809#Comment_118829809

Nope. Not weasel words at all. Reality.

Perhaps if the Minsk accords were enforced we would not be where we are now either.

Perhaps if emergency negotiations were entered into in 2014/2015 Russia would have had to settle for less than what they might settle for after all this is over.

You are all so down on whataboutery, however, nothing happens in a vacuum. It is a valuable exercise to examine past or present situations which have some similarities to the one currently being discussed and which might shine a light on possible solutions/outcomes.

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The whole world has been in a state of chaos ever since 9/11. Surely we ought to try and learn some lessons from what lead up to that world changing event and the carnival of butchery (perpetrated by all sides) which has persisted ever since.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118829918#Comment_118829918

It is weasel words to talk of US responsibility for an unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine, unless you acknowledge what the alternative possibilities were. And no, it wasn't just giving up those regions. You haven't remotely justified that statement. So if you want to face up to reality, do so.

So now your language shifts to "perhaps", whereas before that it was "Of course it could".

"The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Yeah, like Ukraine yielding up Crimea and then yielding up Donbas and then what would they have to yield up next? It would be insanity to think that would mean a peace settlement rather than just a truce until the next set of demands.

There is zero reason to suppose if the West and Ukraine acquiesced to Russian demands that that would be the end of them. Zero.

Had the Czechs fought in 1938 over the Sudetenland, and lost, but yielded up some territory to Germany but preserved their sovereignty into the future - would they have been 'responsible' in some way for the bloodshed that made the Germans 'settle'?

Carnival of butchery? But but but weren't just acting from a sense of realpolitik? Weren't the other side responsible by not immediately surrendering? This is where the both side whatboutery and pseudo-realism leads you. Which is why it must be challenged.

Russia is solely responsible for this situation. Solely. Anything else is just the kind of excuses and nonsense the Kremlin wants you to spread.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118829918#Comment_118829918

I tend to agree but the expansion of Nato was hard to prevent when small states were frightened of their ogrish neighbour to the East.

The USSR had virtually no redeeming features(although I can still hear my classmate defending the invasion of Tzecoslovakia at the time)

It is hard for Russia not to reap the whirlwind of its wicked(can't find a better description) past ,even as it tries to rehabilitate its Soviey heroes like Stalin.

We are where we are and the Russian leadership has caved into an urge of self indulgent Make Russia Great Again and we are supposed to somehow feel guilty that we were not able to humour the beast sufficiently professionally.

Let us rather spend a little time appreciating the heroic resolve of the Ukrainian people whose resistance bears more than favourable comparison to that of the Battle of Britain and whose leader could well have given lessons to Winston Churchill.

As someone said ,a general needs to be lucky and Zelensky may well have been but he and his people certainly gave luck that space.

Nordner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118829989#Comment_118829989

But, but, but...nope, sorry, no, this is like arguing over modern art or gender identity or some other rubbish....

Not a discussion anymore, just egos and entrenched opinions.

Agree to disagree and move on.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118829698#Comment_118829698

"Neither the US nor Ukraine were willing to countenance any compromise with Putin as regards Crimea", they didn't compromise, they just let him take it ffs! What would a "compromise" over Crimea have looked like? Should they have given him Mariupol in 2014 too, just to make sure Putin didn't feel shortchanged?

The desperation to excuse Russia's actions here is beyond pathetic.