Russia & Ukraine

[PackMan97]

I’m glad calmer voices prevailed and we have leadership that doesn’t react impulsively.

It was the refs fault!

[Skydog]

Out own administration is saying the missile was most likely launched by Ukraine, probably as part of it’s very busy air defense response in recent days. It’s trajectory wasn’t from Russia.

[TrickDribbles99]

The Ukrainian officials should have known right away that it was, at least likely that it was their own missile. (??) But yet they claimed it was definitively a Russian missile and that any suggestion otherwise was "amplifying a Russian conspiracy theory". The AP ran with this same angle, based on an "anonymous US govt source". This all could have escalated quickly.

The Biden administration announced a push for $37.6 billion of additional funding from US taxpayers to Ukraine. This was announced in the hours between WW3 panic ensuing and WW3 panic waning.

[Skydog]

From statements I heard today it is clear the US is trying to push Ukraine to the negotiating table NOW. Strange strategy because we are also telling Ukraine they have little chance of driving Russia out. It’s like we are giving moral support to the enemy. Don’t think I like this new US direction.

[CameronBornAndBred]

From statements I heard today it is clear the US is trying to push Ukraine to the negotiating table NOW. Strange strategy because we are also telling Ukraine they have little chance of driving Russia out. It’s like we are giving moral support to the enemy. Don’t think I like this new US direction.

Maybe the changing seasons are driving some of the urgency? Winter is coming, and it's going to be brutal on those without power and gas readily available to keep the population warm. As we've seen, Russia can take out power plants and gas lines without stepping one single soldier into harm's way.
Your version of moral support might be another person's call for humanity. It's a conundrum.

[sagegrouse]

I have listened to a number of scholars on this topic recently. One offered a lesson from history, which was that conflicts that last more than 12 months often extend for a decade. Ceylon, Malaysia, Vietnam come to mind. WWII, only from the perspective of the Japanese and Chinese.

It's not surprising that the US and other countries would look for a way to end the conflict.

[Skydog]

I understand the reasons for peace now. But I also know it effectively means Ukraine giving up 20% of it’s land. I see zero hope for Ukrainian agreement — so why push for something that won’t happen but will weaken your ally’s position?

[cato]

I understand the reasons for peace now. But I also know it effectively means Ukraine giving up 20% of it’s land. I see zero hope for Ukrainian agreement — so why push for something that won’t happen but will weaken your ally’s position?

It is not as though the position of the US and NATO are irrelevant for Ukraine’s thinking. Ukraine was able to thwart the initial invasion essentially on their own (although leveraging off the training and aid from the US and NATO since 2014), but their ability to reverse the tide and go on the counterattack owes a lot to significantly increased US and NATO support (and obviously the fight and sacrifice of Ukrainians) since then.

[sagegrouse]

I understand the reasons for peace now. But I also know it effectively means Ukraine giving up 20% of it’s land. I see zero hope for Ukrainian agreement — so why push for something that won’t happen but will weaken your ally’s position?

I hope my position was more nuanced than your presumptive statement of "peace now." (That's the kind of thing I say when I am trying to appear intelligent.) I didn't say or mean to imply that. Neither side wants a ten-year (or 5-year or even 2-year) war; therefore, the US and allies will be cognizant of opportunities to end the conflict on favorable terms for Ukraine. This winter, when fighting subsides, may be a good time to re-assess the situation.

[Phredd3]

Neither side wants a ten-year (or 5-year or even 2-year) war; therefore, the US and allies will be cognizant of opportunities to end the conflict on favorable terms for Ukraine.

I wonder what conditions - at least, that the Russians might be expected to agree to - would be considered "favorable" for Ukraine? I mean, the working assumption is that Russia mostly came for the Donbas, which is by far the most economically important region in Ukraine, and Russia still basically holds all of it. Other than "let the bully have what he wants", I'm not sure what kind of agreement could be reached right now that is even remotely favorable for Ukraine.

What am I missing?

[OldPhiKap]

I wonder what conditions - at least, that the Russians might be expected to agree to - would be considered "favorable" for Ukraine? I mean, the working assumption is that Russia mostly came for the Donbas, which is by far the most economically important region in Ukraine, and Russia still basically holds all of it. Other than "let the bully have what he wants", I'm not sure what kind of agreement could be reached right now that is even remotely favorable for Ukraine.

What am I missing?

I agree. Ukraine does not want to give up any new territory and in fact wants a return of Crimea.

[Skydog]

I hope my position was more nuanced than your presumptive statement of "peace now." (That's the kind of thing I say when I am trying to appear intelligent.) I didn't say or mean to imply that. Neither side wants a ten-year (or 5-year or even 2-year) war; therefore, the US and allies will be cognizant of opportunities to end the conflict on favorable terms for Ukraine. This winter, when fighting subsides, may be a good time to re-assess the situation.

Sorry - I wasn’t being critical or reducing your point to that. I was just using shorthand in a post to refer to the natural desire of most of the world for this war to end soon.

But I just don’t see opportunities to “end the war on favorable terms to Ukraine” unless/until Ukraine drives Russia out of most of the country. Short of that happening Russia isn’t going to make any deal that gives back Donbas. And a deal can’t be considered favorable to Ukraine unless they do.

Maybe I’m missing something (won’t be first time) but statements over the past couple days sound like the US has decided to push Ukraine to give up 20% of their land for the sake of peace. Obviously Ukraine won’t go along with that!

I’m all for going to the negotiating table whebever possible. But the sides seem way too far apart at this point to envision a peace deal.

edit: I see Phredd3 beat me to it.

[TrickDribbles99]

The Ukrainian officials should have known right away that it was, at least likely that it was their own missile. (??) But yet they claimed it was definitively a Russian missile and that any suggestion otherwise was "amplifying a Russian conspiracy theory". The AP ran with this same angle, based on an "anonymous US govt source". This all could have escalated quickly.

The Biden administration announced a push for $37.6 billion of additional funding from US taxpayers to Ukraine. This was announced in the hours between WW3 panic ensuing and WW3 panic waning.

A day later, the AP released a correction to their single-sourced, uncorroborated reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...059_story.html I would hope that "anonymous govt official" will no longer be trusted, but I won't hold my breath.

[Skydog]

A day later, the AP released a correction to their single-sourced, uncorroborated reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...059_story.html I would hope that "anonymous govt official" will no longer be trusted, but I won't hold my breath.

I understand why using “anonymous government officials” seems suspicious. But what is the alternative? The press can’t be effective without being allowed to report information given by insiders who wish/have to be anonymous. We need anonymous sources.

The only answer is to judge a media source by its track record. How often does the anonymous sourced info turn out to be valid? Have there been verified instances of shenanigans by reporters for a particular media outfit? When an anonymous source turns out to be incorrect do they immediately publish a correction, as they did here?

If anyone has another solution I would love to hear it.

edit: I now see your point was about using a single source and your skepticism that they will quit listening to a source who proved unreliable. So my post has nothing to do with your points. Carry on folks.

[cato]

I noted the caution of mainstream outlets other than the AP to immediately attribute blame to Russia and noted the thinness of the AP’s reporting. I didn’t get as breathless about this as TrickDribble did. I just waited for more reporting.

[TrickDribbles99]

I noted the caution of mainstream outlets other than the AP to immediately attribute blame to Russia and noted the thinness of the AP’s reporting. I didn’t get as breathless about this as TrickDribble did. I just waited for more reporting.

Um, okay? Good on you then. I'll concede that you and I have differing opinions on how long disinformation that could precipitate a global calamity should be allowed to circulate uncorrected. Thankfully, those folks who are in charge of pushing those particular buttons are cool as a cucumber like you, and waited for more reporting.

[sagegrouse]

Negotiations, or "discussions,"if you prefer, doesn't equal "surrender of territory." There are a number of agreements in place today -- such as allowing shipments of grain from Ukraine, which a few hours ago was extended for four more months.

No one wants a multi-year war -- the human costs would be horrific for Russia and Ukraine, and the economic costs would be high for all parties, including the US and NATO. So, it seems like kind of situation where the parties should be talking. And talks won't reach near-term conclusion of the conflict, but there are a lot of layers to this onion.

Kindly, Sage

[dudog84]

Um, okay? Good on you then. I'll concede that you and I have differing opinions on how long disinformation that could precipitate a global calamity should be allowed to circulate uncorrected. Thankfully, those folks who are in charge of pushing those particular buttons are cool as a cucumber like you, and waited for more reporting.

I get what you're saying, but I highly doubt (very highly) the folks in charge of pushing those buttons are making decisions based upon AP (or any news organization) reporting. Well, at least most administrations, and certainly the current one.

[Phredd3]

Negotiations, or "discussions,"if you prefer, doesn't equal "surrender of territory."

Of course not. You used the phrase "end the conflict on favorable terms with Ukraine". That implies the discussions have taken place and have concluded. That's what got the reaction it did. I don't think there's anyone here who is saying discussions should not be had. I just think most of us feel that it is well-nigh impossible to achieve your proposed conclusion; at least, not anytime soon.

[dudog84]

Try not to puke in your mouth while reading this: "Congress should end the war in Ukraine by withdrawing from NATO"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...8b0d71b50b47cf

In 1938, Britain & France told Czechoslovakia to give the Sudentenland to Hitler to keep peace. How'd that work out?