this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2023
137 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1036 readers
28 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ukraine will at least need to make some sort of compromise over the port at Sevastopol. From what I understand, that's the only port available for Russia's Black Sea fleet. Russia has historically held a naval base there and would likely be unyielding on that point. Forcing Russia to butt out is one thing, but them losing significant amounts of their defense capability is another.
heh, I'm sure Russia very much feels this way, but I don't see how Ukraine needs to make any compromises at all, nor why Russia should be given the opportunity to save any face. They got themselves into this mess and have done some terrible things. They deserve to crawl away with their tails between their legs with nothing to show for it. Why should they get anything after what they've done?
I fully agree that Russia crawling away with their tail between their legs would be the ideal solution. But at what price? Russia would be willing to spill a lot of blood over that base, even compared to an already bloody war. The reality is that starting negotiations with the assumption that the end agreement will include guarantees around Sevastopol will save a lot of lives without making a huge change from the 2014 status quo.
the price is Ukranian freedom, and it's worth fighting for until Russia backs down. There is no rational argument to be made for Ukraine sacrificing the freedom of its citizens, for if they do - if Russia learns it can bully Ukraine into sacrificing its citizens and land - it will just come back for more.
russia has proven it will not honor its agreements, or this war would not be happening now. they need to learn their lesson and be beaten.
But is it so important to have that patch of ground in Crimea? It would also give Ukraine a snap back mechanism if Russia ever reneges on a deal. Fund separatists or start a Russia-backed coup and bombs could be raining down on Russia's precious warships within minutes. Stick to the deal and everything stays nice and peaceful indefinitely. The price is minor, since Russia already had the base in 2014. The change is that there would need to be a formal treaty that obliges Russia to non-interference in Ukrainian affairs and obliges Ukraine to allow supplies through to the Black Sea fleet. This was previously maintained by having a friendly/neutral Ukrainian government, but now terms must be in writing.
I'd love to see it, but that's just petty vengeance on my part, wanting to see a bully punished.
I don't know if a humiliated Russia is an ideal solution. The humiliation of Germany after WW I greatly contributed to the rise of Hitler, and we don't want to see a repeat of that.
An ideal solution IMHO would be regime change, a complete withdrawl to pre-2014 borders, and full blame placed on Putin and his staunchest cronies, allowing the general public and even his supporting public to save face. The story that he lied to and misled the public might alleviate some humiliation at the withdrawal. Something like how WW II was handled should be the model: defeat of the previous regime, strict laws banning the worst behaviors leading to Putin's dictatorship, curtailing corruption, and strong investment and rebuilding of Russian society by the victors. People tend to forget hurt egos more easily when they're prosperous.
Whipping the dog that bit you doesn't make a safer dog.
Edit: PS, it's easy for me to say this. I have no friends or family raped, tortured or murdered by Russians. I have had no children abducted into re-education camps. If it happened yo me, I'd want a blood bath, a murderous swath cut through Russia to the Kremlin. I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want this. I'm just saying that, unless you're commited to genocide, it's more likely to come back around in an endless cycle of vengeance.
Speaking of the Marshall Plan, it had considerable push back at the time. It took a Soviet backed coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 for Americans to realize that leaving Europe starved and in tatters would push Europe into the arms of the Soviets. The Marshall Plan was a relatively cheap way to win battles before they ever occurred.
Russia will not, of course, be the same as post-WW2 Nazi Germany. The victors must be Russians, not outsiders. But Westerners should be willing to give freely, maybe with some basic stipulations around rule of law so Russia doesn't fall back into being a dictatorial kleptocracy that threatens its neighbors.
Russians being victors meaning Russians overthrowing their oppressor? Because a Russian victory in Ukraine, as unlikely as it would be, would lead only to more aggression and certainly no outside investment (except perhaps from China, which is facing its own problems).
The "victors" would not be Russians defeating Ukrainians militarily, but instead reformists Russians changing Russia from the inside. The Russo-Ukraine war will of course be part of the backdrop. Even many military fanboys in Russia are realizing that the war has been incompetently run. With the right person diverting that anger into productive forms, positive change could be achieved. Then there might be a return of outside investment, though I would expect investors to be slow to begin with (once burned, twice shy). Change coming from the West will be viewed with too much suspicion. Only Russians can change Russia.
@pingveno Russia does have another port in the mainland, at Novorossiysk. Why did it not decide to use it instead? That is out of my understanding. Perhaps Putin just wanted to make Ukraine vulnerable in the south, or gain a longer shore on the Black Sea. Otherwise, I don't know.
@BrooklynMan
You're right, I was wrong. However, Novorossiysk is 200 miles to the east, the equivalent of New York to Washington, DC traveled via water. Sevastopol gives the Black Sea fleet a much stronger presence. Russia would be highly resistant to weakening the Black Sea fleet, to the point of that being a deal breaker for any peace treaty.
Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there's some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.
Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.
Yeah, that's basically what I'm suggesting, plus security guarantees to avoid a repeat conflict. Before 2014, Russia was renting out the base.
Interesting, I didn't realize that Russia was already renting out the base pre-2014. Thank you for that context.
It's probably why Russia invaded Crimea in the first place. Otherwise it's not all that useful.
Or you know it could be that Crimea is primarily populated by Russians and the regime the west installed after the coup was actively doing pogroms against Russian speaking people in Ukraine.
The timeline you're proposing doesn't even make sense. Yanukovych was out of power by February 22, 2014. Russia was laying the grounds for the annexation of Crimea at roughly the same time. The next day, protestors were in place in Crimea. In under a week, Russian special forces invaded. The central Ukrainian government was still trying to get its britches on. There was no time available to be "doing pograms".
Russia had a deal with the existing democratically elected government in Ukraine to have a base in Crimea. Claiming this was laying groundwork for annexation is ridiculous because there was no reason for any sort of annexation if Ukraine stayed on friendly relations with Russia.
Meanwhile, the pogroms were already happening before the regime took power. I've linked you the sources for this at least a dozen times. The fact that you continue to pretend none of this happened makes it pretty clear that facts don't actually matter to you.
I hold no quarrel with their base in Crimea, as I have said numerous times on this post. The red line was sending special forces ("little green men") to take over the government and later hold a sham election.
I have to ask, do you hold the same quarrel over these events? https://archive.ph/BAxYc
That answer is frankly a steaming pile of bullshit. Take this:
A plain reading of other quotes in the answer about the CIA is that the covert nature and problematic track record of the CIA is anathema to building open democratic institutions. The ideal of the NED is to be a more open and transparent organization. This pattern is repeated again and again: take a quote, then misread it to a level of incompetence that borders on malice.
They also equate the NED to the CIA multiple times without actually showing that is true. They show merely that the NED took over some functions that the CIA used to perform and do them in the clear. From what I understand, this happened in the 1970's and 1980's as the excesses of the CIA in the post-WW2 era were coming to light. Congress and the public demanded better behavior. The intelligence agencies have never gotten to be perfect angels, but on the plus side they stopped trying to mind control people with drugs (likely).
Then take this quote:
This is a common structure in the US, notably with the RAND think tank. RAND is run separately from the US government but with a federal budget allocation. The advantage is having someone outside of government who can operate with some independence. RAND can produce ideas without being beholden to politicians or orthodoxy. China is looking into creating a similar think tank to generate ideas that would otherwise be shut down by the party. Given this person has no familiarity with this structure, my conclusion is they have no idea what they're talking about.
The sources are also sometimes extremely questionable. Take Paul Craig Roberts, who they cite for multiple claims of CIA involvement on behalf of establishing military bases, including Ukraine in NATO, and profiteering by taking over Ukraine's economy. Obviously the author's only criteria for inclusion was "agrees with me", because the guy is an absolute nutter. 9/11 truther, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and has rather revisionist views of the Holocaust.
By relying on an article, you rely on their vetting of sources. They showed that they freely used at least one unreliable source.