Ukraine updates

[PeteOsborne]

The Minsk deal was meant to hoodwink Russia, that is well known. Given the erosion of trust and the subsequent refusal to arrive at any compromise, war was inevitable.

And yes Putin said that, but we all knew Russia would invade Ukraine since 2008. If you didn't then you weren't paying attention.

NATO should have learned and worked out a compromise and they did not.

You need to research the Minsk deals and what happened concernig them a little more.
Since Putin lied about it and everyone new he was going to invade, that makes it acceptable?
Nato learned that you can't trust Putin.
Would you compromise with a neighbour that forces their way into your house and says the living room and kitchen are now theirs because your brother was helping you install a security system?

 

[PeteOsborne]

I read it as definitely meaning to dismantle NATO.

"All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation"

The other points still apply.

Bloc confrontation occurs when a country invades another.

 

[krealtarron]

You need to research the Minsk deals and what happened concernig them a little more.
Since Putin lied about it and everyone new he was going to invade, that makes it acceptable?
Nato learned that you can't trust Putin.
Would you compromise with a neighbour that forces their way into your house and says the living room and kitchen are now theirs because your brother was helping you install a security system?

Oh please, with the whole Putin lied.

What about "not one inch east ward" promise made to Russia only for NATO to backstab Russia?

NATO has lied and provoked Russia more than Russia has done NATO.

You need to read more about how the Minsk deal was only used to buy time for Ukraine and was not signed with anything constructive in mind. NATO knew Putin would invade and they were simply bidding time and working behind the scenes to destroy Russia.

This war wouldn't have happened if NATO did not exist.

 

[krealtarron]

Bloc confrontation occurs when a country invades another.

Bloc confrontation occurs when blocs are formed. Aka NATO.

 

[Valcazar]

It was a 12 point plan, here it is right from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China :
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html
China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis
2023-02-24 09:00
1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries. Universally recognized international law, including the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, must be strictly observed. The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected.
2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality. The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should, following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world, help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture. All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.
3. Ceasing hostilities. Conflict and war benefit no one. All parties must stay rational and exercise restraint, avoid fanning the flames and aggravating tensions, and prevent the crisis from deteriorating further or even spiraling out of control. All parties should support Russia and Ukraine in working in the same direction and resuming direct dialogue as quickly as possible, so as to gradually deescalate the situation and ultimately reach a comprehensive ceasefire.
4. Resuming peace talks. Dialogue and negotiation are the only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis. All efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis must be encouraged and supported. The international community should stay committed to the right approach of promoting talks for peace, help parties to the conflict open the door to a political settlement as soon as possible, and create conditions and platforms for the resumption of negotiation. China will continue to play a constructive role in this regard.
5. Resolving the humanitarian crisis. All measures conducive to easing the humanitarian crisis must be encouraged and supported. Humanitarian operations should follow the principles of neutrality and impartiality, and humanitarian issues should not be politicized. The safety of civilians must be effectively protected, and humanitarian corridors should be set up for the evacuation of civilians from conflict zones. Efforts are needed to increase humanitarian assistance to relevant areas, improve humanitarian conditions, and provide rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access, with a view to preventing a humanitarian crisis on a larger scale. The UN should be supported in playing a coordinating role in channeling humanitarian aid to conflict zones.
6. Protecting civilians and prisoners of war (POWs). Parties to the conflict should strictly abide by international humanitarian law, avoid attacking civilians or civilian facilities, protect women, children and other victims of the conflict, and respect the basic rights of POWs. China supports the exchange of POWs between Russia and Ukraine, and calls on all parties to create more favorable conditions for this purpose.
7. Keeping nuclear power plants safe. China opposes armed attacks against nuclear power plants or other peaceful nuclear facilities, and calls on all parties to comply with international law including the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) and resolutely avoid man-made nuclear accidents. China supports the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in playing a constructive role in promoting the safety and security of peaceful nuclear facilities.
8. Reducing strategic risks. Nuclear weapons must not be used and nuclear wars must not be fought. The threat or use of nuclear weapons should be opposed. Nuclear proliferation must be prevented and nuclear crisis avoided. China opposes the research, development and use of chemical and biological weapons by any country under any circumstances.
9. Facilitating grain exports. All parties need to implement the Black Sea Grain Initiative signed by Russia, Türkiye, Ukraine and the UN fully and effectively in a balanced manner, and support the UN in playing an important role in this regard. The cooperation initiative on global food security proposed by China provides a feasible solution to the global food crisis.
10. Stopping unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions and maximum pressure cannot solve the issue; they only create new problems. China opposes unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Relevant countries should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” against other countries, so as to do their share in deescalating the Ukraine crisis and create conditions for developing countries to grow their economies and better the lives of their people.
11. Keeping industrial and supply chains stable. All parties should earnestly maintain the existing world economic system and oppose using the world economy as a tool or weapon for political purposes. Joint efforts are needed to mitigate the spillovers of the crisis and prevent it from disrupting international cooperation in energy, finance, food trade and transportation and undermining the global economic recovery.
12. Promoting post-conflict reconstruction. The international community needs to take measures to support post-conflict reconstruction in conflict zones. China stands ready to provide assistance and play a constructive role in this endeavor.

Hmm.
This the same one I saw earlier as a general sort of "people should talk" one.
Very boring and basic and non-committal.
(Which is fine, really.)

I vaguely remember seeing one come across with a tentative plan about the territory and the ceasefire details, but maybe I'm just misremembering that. (I wasn't paying too much attention since it seemed clear there wasn't much effort being put behind this China peach initiative and it seemed more for PR by Xi.)

I have to think at this point I imagined it or it was some weird internet thing that briefly took off before falling apart as obviously nonsense.

Thanks for posting this, Pete.

 

[basketcase]

Or a more realistic description is that you are deluding yourself and mindless comment dumping like you usually do.

By mindless comment, you mean having ideas not directly from Kremlin TV?

 

[basketcase]

9/10 videos in western media is about how amazing Ukraine is doing. So we atleast have balance.

Except they're not. The Western media reports from last year were how Ukraine was able to halt the Russian advance and take back much of the land. Now the media is talking about how slow the Russian attacks are going which is 100% true. Russia has put huge amounts of men into the attacks on Bakhmut and Avdiivka where there advances are measured in meters.

DeepStateMAP | Map of the war in Ukraine

News of Russia's war against Ukraine on the map

deepstatemap.live

"#12/48.5894/37.9475

 

[basketcase]

Ukraine 'losing 500 troops daily' in Bakhmut fight; Cost of Zelensky's 'prestige battle' | Details

Bakhmut March 1

Bakhmut March 31


Russian/Wagner casualties are nearly 30,000 in Putin's desperation to claim some kind of military success. Now that they're in more urban areas, I can see the comparisons to Stalingrad but Putin's generals are playing the role of Field Marshal Paulus, not Zhukov.

 

[basketcase]

Ukraine does need denazification (as does Russia to be fair). Nazis are state sponsored in their law enforcement and military.

So is the US

It is not a bad idea to split Ukraine. After all eastern Ukraine is pro-Russia...

I know it's a while back but when Ukraine voted for independence, the "pro-Russian" regions only had 12, 132, and 7% vote against it. Even Crimea mad a majority supporting independence from Russia

More importantly, Russian forces don't even hold the regions they claim to have annexed.

 

[basketcase]

I read it as definitely meaning to dismantle NATO.

"All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation"

The other points still apply.

Does that apply to the CSTO as well?

 

[krealtarron]

So is the US

Really? So there are nazis that are state sponsored and approved working in American militar and law enforcement?

 

[Valcazar]

Isn't that the reason Nato was formed?
To protect countries from invasion by a foreign military force.

Yes.
But as krealtarron will remind you, that's just a fake reason.
It is actually an aggressive alliance designed to destroy Russia and its very existence means Russia is threatened.
Therefore, to prevent any other country from joining the alliance that exists to prevent that country from being invaded by Russia, Russia must invade countries that haven't joined the alliance yet.

Except they would never invade Finland, because Finland would be protected from an invasion and they would lose.

It is therefore unreasonable for countries that don't want to be invaded by Russia to protect themselves from being invaded by Russia because that means Russia will have to invade them to prove that they shouldn't defend themselves from invasion because Russia wouldn't invade them if they didn't try to defend themselves.

It's all very logical and smart.

 

[krealtarron]

Yes.
But as krealtarron will remind you, that's just a fake reason.
It is actually an aggressive alliance designed to destroy Russia and its very existence means Russia is threatened.
Therefore, to prevent any other country from joining the alliance that exists to prevent that country from being invaded by Russia, Russia must invade countries that haven't joined the alliance yet.

Except they would never invade Finland, because Finland would be protected from an invasion and they would lose.

It is therefore unreasonable for countries that don't want to be invaded by Russia to protect themselves from being invaded by Russia because that means Russia will have to invade them to prove that they shouldn't defend themselves from invasion because Russia wouldn't invade them if they didn't try to defend themselves.

It's all very logical and smart.

Your argument is predicated on the false premise that Russia is a perpetual invader. This is not true. It is infact a ridiculous cold war era notion that has been hammered into your head via western propaganda. Because if this is how the west sees Russia, then Russia has every reason to see the west as the aggressor. This is a never ending cycle of distrust.

So if NATO does not exist, there is no threat to anyone and Russia would not invade.

That you suspect Russia would, means you consider them a defacto threat and act accordingly, which is the very reason they consider NATO a threat in the first place as well.

So what you are really engaged in is a ridiculous circular reasoning.

 

[krealtarron]

By mindless comment, you mean having ideas not directly from Kremlin TV?

No I mean mindless rapid comment dumps for the heck of it.

 

[krealtarron]

Does that apply to the CSTO as well?

Are they anti-US or anti-West? If so yes.

 

[krealtarron]

 

[Valcazar]

Russia withdrawing is not a possibility now. NATO pushed them into war.

So they will never stop fighting?
They refuse all peace talks and refuse to negotiate?
They are 100% against peace?

That's a hell of a stance for them to take.

So what is the minimum they need to stop fighting?

You already know they won't accept a neutrality promise from Ukraine, they've turned it down before.

Territory?
Control of Ukraine?
Tribute?

Or do you just think Russians are crazed, bloodthirsty orks who love war for its own sake?

Surely you think they have some kind of end game in mind?

Or is it that you're willing to fight to the last Russian to see NATO dismantled?
Your next two posts seem to argue that Putin will never accept anything where NATO stays intact and that China must force the dismantling of NATO for peace.

Your argument that Putin just invaded an "innocent" country most definitely is a ridiculous position however.

"Innocence" has nothing to do with it.
You need to get off your weird, cartoon view of international relations.

Putin did invade.
What you think of the morality of the country he invaded has little to do with it.

You need to be neutral when you argue about this war. But you are pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian. So you will always be biased in your judgements and arguemntation.

I on the other hand, dont care for both those fucks. I think they are both scumbags and racists. So I argue objectively.

LOL!
Holy shit.
You wouldn't know objective if it bit you in the ass.

You can't even formulate a coherent argument about the war and Russia's aims.

There are no good guys in this war.

Again, your weird compulsive need to have some kind of primary colour morality (just so you can reject it and claim that you are being cynical and objective in your harsh realpolitic understanding) is irrelevant to the issue of international relations and stability. You do need to address actual actions and behavior on the ground even if you want to pretend everyone is equally evil at all times and you are so above the free in how much you hate Russia and Ukraine.

 

[krealtarron]

So they will never stop fighting?

Withdrawing means admitting defeat. That wont happen without a ceasefire and talks and compromise in some way shape or form that makes Putin look good.

"Innocence" has nothing to do with it.

That is the kind of argument that I am seeing here from you and others. Hence why I mentioned that.

LOL!
Holy shit.
You wouldn't know objective if it bit you in the ass.
You can't even formulate a coherent argument about the war and Russia's aims.

That speaks to your lack of self awareness. As I have mentioned several times, I dont have dog in this fight. I neither care about the Russians nor about the Ukrainians. But, it is very much true that NATO was the primary cause for war. I am just objective in calling that. You and the others on the other hand, argue that I am some sort of a Putin supporter despite me saying that I am not. So just admit that you are fundamentally biased in your opinions about this.

You do need to address actual actions and behavior on the ground even if you want to pretend everyone is equally evil at all times and you are so above the free in how much you hate Russia and Ukraine.

And I have. I have talked at length about how the last 30 years of NATO actions have led up to this moment. On the other hand, while you run your mouth about addressing actual actions and behaviours on the ground and staying objective, you consistently display the opposite and use 2 primary reasonings for the war a) Apparently "unprovoked" Russian Aggression (s) leading to distrust between the west and Russia b) Russian ambitions to recreate some version of the USSR. In doing that you have automatically chosen to take moral high ground that does not exist.

 

[krealtarron]

 

[Valcazar]

We interpret that differently, I read it as no country should invade another country due to security concerns.
Key points.
The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others.
The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should, following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world, help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture.

It's a tricky bit of language and is there to kind of let everybody get what they want. The general structure of that language, especially the " oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security" exists in the current security accords around Europe that Russia is a signatory to, and that language has always been incorporated into the "NATO is a threat so it can't have more people" language.

What is interesting in the China formulation is that it does NOT include the language that a country is allowed to choose its own security arrangements and alliances (with the understanding it shouldn't set up an arrangement specifically to be a threat to someone else).
That language isn't ANYWHERE in the document, which is kind of an interesting tell.

I don't think kreal is being delusional arguing that " prevent bloc confrontation " can be used to argue this is a discussion about dismantling NATO. That and the "cold war" reference feel like clear nods in that direction. Of course, it is kept all vague enough that it doesn't have to be interpreted that way depending on how negotiations go. (Kreal, since he is ideologically committed to the idea that NATO is Evil, will see not pursuing it to that conclusion is bad, but IR negotiations are complicated.)

On one level, this is just the same line that everyone has agreed to for the last 50 years or more - "we should all work together to not have a world war break out".

Like I said - it's all kind of vague and anodyne and safe as a general "can't we all just get along" principle.
The real meat would be in what commitment are made to support those goals.