Russia's War Against Ukraine

[JudgeDredd]

The only way to achieve peace is if the benefits of stopping the killing outweigh the benefits of continuing it.

Thankfully we didn't feel like that in 1939 - or President Macron would be getting introduced as Reichsfuhrer Macron.

There is another way to achieve piece - but there's no stomach for it.

Whatever peace deal he strikes, I'll see you in a few years when we're all speculating on a massive Russian exercise taking place in Belarus.

Putin's Russia is no Hitler's Germany and I think the analogy is misleading at best, as widespread as it may be, and this thinking is, in part, responsible for prolonging the war. Furthermore, the geopolitical world of today is a vastly different landscape than it was in 1939. There is virtually no comparison.

I certainly see and respect your perspective, but I somewhat disagree...but you are right. one way or another, time will tell and it may take a few years before we know.

In my opinion the reason this war has been prolonged is because Europe and the US drip fed Ukraine the money and kit they needed to prevent Russia from taking their land.

This war is being prolonged by Putin. Ukraine just wants them the fuck off their land.

We were happy to kick the Argentinians off The Falklands. We were happy to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. We were happy to back to Kuwait for another bite. We were happy to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

Can anyone tell me where the stomach has gone for the fight when that fight is a little tougher?

As for the 1938 (not 1939) analogy being misleading - I don't understand how anyone on these boards who has studied WWII to any level (and I'm sure we all have) can't see the similarities to the buildup to 2022.

Certainly it's not exactly like it. But there are clear comparisons that simply can't be ignored and to do so is just allowing history to repeat itself - which we have clearly done. From 1938 and the Sudetenland and the build up of the annexation of Czechoslovakia, to 1939 and through to '41 when the US eventually came in - with the US in those early years providing the UK with everything it needed to try and stop the UK talking German. Germany's encroachment on the UK coast and the fight to prevent that has very deep similarities to what's going on in the Russian Ukraine war.

Just because the world stage is different to the 1930s, does not mean the invasion of Ukraine, and how it came about, is not similar to the anexation of the Sudetenland and, ultimately, Czechoslovakia.

[Crossroads]

Hear hear, Judge. Russia is not Nazi Germany, but they have been and are actively Building Soviet Union Back Better. Russian imperialism towards the Russian World requires a Russian Belarus and a Russian Ukraine at minimum.

National Review: Do We Have To Lie On Russia's Behalf?

It's not complicated at all. Russia invaded Ukraine on the second occasion for the explicit purpose of eradicating what Vladimir Putin regards as a historical mistake from the face of the Earth. He is not coy about his aims or vague about the ancient historical claims on Ukrainian lands he intended to press.

If they get rewarded again, how can it be anything else but a clear signal to continue. And while they might not attack Fulda Gap next, Putin has systematically picked one war at a time. Next invasion candidates? Georgia, Armenia, ... A Peaceful Nation surrounded by frozen conflicts and cease fires, as Darth Putin reminds us.

I don't see that they have learnt any other lessons but that the combined West, time after time, shall appease them. Personnel losses? Meh. Financial losses? So they lost some investment funds, but just hold on a bit, the West will surely finance their next war. Again.

Probe with bayonet, if mush, push forward. Three steps forward, if you meet steel, stop. Maybe take one step back, if there is a clear reward to do so. Otherwise, stay put, wait, probe again.

Rinse and repeat.

Putin has Russia on war economy, getting out of will be quite a task, if even possible without some major pain. So why not help him to do so. I would really like to learn what is the incentive to have a strong, emboldened, hostile Russia back in the geopolitics.

[Pete Dero]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/24/politics/us-joins-russia-ukraine-un-vote/index.html

The United States joined Russia to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia's war against Ukraine Monday in a stunning shift from years of US policy.

The vote against the Ukrainian and European-backed resolution saw the US at odds with its longtime European allies and instead aligned with the aggressor in the war on the three-year anniversary of Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The US again voted the same way as Russia later Monday on a US-proposed UN Security Council resolution that did not call the Kremlin the aggressor or acknowledge Ukraine's territorial integrity. The resolution passed without the support of five European members of the Security Council.




https://x.com/cspan/status/1894094499082899525

Q: "You called Zelenskyy a dictator. Would you use the same words regarding Putin?"

President Trump: "I don't use those words lightly."

[JudgeDredd]

I think if you find yourself on the same political page as Russia, North Korea and Belarus, you have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

That's just an incredible turn of events.

[Jarhead0331]

This issue keeps coming up. I posted this article over the summer in this thread.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/27/ukraines-war-is-like-world-war-i-not-world-war-ii/

People can, of course, agree to disagree.

When Germany rearmed and invaded Czech, Poland, et al., the rest of Europe and the US did essentially nothing. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe and the US gave hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid that led to the destruction of the modern Russian military and the death of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers. What stomach are you talking about? Is that "appeasement"? I don't understand how anyone on this page could equate the level of aid given to Ukraine with doing nothing to stop aggression, as was the case in the 1930s.

Russia did invade Georgia. Did we equate it to the build up before World War 2? They invaded Chechnya too. A couple of times. Was it the beginning of a Russian world takeover? How about going back even further...Afghanistan? I don't see how the invasion of Ukraine, while recognizing the strategic motivations of Russia, presages a global Russian invasion. Mind you, Russia was incapable of taking cities less than 20 miles from its own border. Therefore, I don't see Ukraine as the first in a row of European dominos. I'm sorry.

I ask again, what kind of engagement and outcome would be acceptable to the "hawks" among you? I'm genuinely curious what an acceptable end to the war looks like for you. Personally, Yes, I want the war to end. Of course, I want it to end on fair and meaningful terms for Ukraine, but the terms must be realistic too. If this makes me a poor student of history, so be it.

[Crossroads]

I don't know, Jar. I don't consider myself a hawk but a realist. I am full of questions myself. The communication from White House is most confusing at the moment.

As for ending the war, a ceasefire - "you cease, we fire" - on Russian terms is something we have witnessed dozens of times in Ukraine alone already.

[Anguille]

This has probably been discussed before but this is of course the main reason why Ukraine couldn't defend itself in the first place.

Budapest Mermorandum

According to the three memoranda,Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively removing all Soviet nuclear weapons from their soil, and that they agreed to the following:

Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).
Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Not to use nuclear weapons against any non–nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

[JudgeDredd]

I think either I wasn't clear in exactly what I meant, or I mislead. That's on me and my terrible habit of not being specific.

As for peace - I'm no hawk - it may seem like it but I don't want WWIII. But if I'm pushed for an answer, my answer would be it's for Ukraine to decide and it's for any country interested in democracy to assist them to get to a point where they can ask the Russians to leave - or they get to boot them out.

Look - ultimately what I am actually getting at is by showing Putin weakness (as we did with someone else in WWII (I'm not referring to 2022 here - I'm referring to now), we are emboldening him (as we did with Hitler in WWII). He will be back. He will do this again. And by bringing him back in from the cold to get his money, allowing him to make money, only provides him with the means to rebuild and try again.

[Jarhead0331]

I don't know, Jar. I don't consider myself a hawk but a realist. I am full of questions myself. The communication from White House is most confusing at the moment.

As for ending the war, a ceasefire - "you cease, we fire" - on Russian terms is something we have witnessed dozens of times in Ukraine alone already.

I agree with respect to the communication from the White House. It is confusing. It is confounding and, at times, also frustrating. Please don't mistake my desire for peace to be an implicit acceptance of the public side of the current administration's efforts at diplomacy. But, as I've said, that is Trump. He confuses, he confounds, and he damn sure frustrates, but he gets results more often than not. People are actually seriously talking about peace and making deals. This to me signals progress behind closed doors.

I just don't see defanging Russia in perpetuity as a realistic outcome, which is what some seem to be suggesting as the only plausible path toward an agreeable peace. Russia is always going to have the means to make war, no matter how long this particular conflict goes on. It is never going to be a passive player in world politics. This is why I think peace through economics is a viable approach.

I think either I wasn't clear in exactly what I meant, or I mislead. That's on me and my terrible habit of not being specific.

As for peace - I'm no hawk - it may seem like it but I don't want WWIII. But if I'm pushed for an answer, my answer would be it's for Ukraine to decide and it's for any country interested in democracy to assist them to get to a point where they can ask the Russians to leave - or they get to boot them out.

Look - ultimately what I am actually getting at is by showing Putin weakness (as we did with someone else in WWII (I'm not referring to 2022 here - I'm referring to now), we are emboldening him (as we did with Hitler in WWII). He will be back. He will do this again. And by bringing him back in from the cold to get his money, allowing him to make money, only provides him with the means to rebuild and try again.

I got you, brother. And I agree, there can be no peace without Ukraine being on board. They ABSOLUTELY have a seat at that table. With that said, there is no doubt that in order for there to be a resolution, they are going to have to make some concession. That is almost always how wars are ended. A white peace is very rare.

[Sir Slash]

I think that's right. At least Trump is trying to find way to end this war, when was the last serious attempt to anybody made to stop the killing? And he has things moving all right. European leaders are involved and pledging more aid and support for Ukraine and greater levels of Defense Spending all over. This is a good thing I think.


The wars in Afghanistan, Syria against ISIS, the Falklands, and all the way back to Vietnam and Korea, cannot compare to this war. Three years of almost constant combat year round over a front of what, 800+ miles? Hundreds of thousands under arms and hundreds of thousands casualties along with entire regions laid waste and cities turned into rubble. This is the largest and most costly war since WWII and the cost to win a military victory by either side would be many times greater. No President would ever be able to sell the American people on jumping into these deep waters. And if tried, they wouldn't be President very long. Time for it to end.   

[undercovergeek]

Can putin go back to the Russians and say we lost XXX people and materiel and I'm proud to announce we have won the Donbas and crimea - is that acceptable back at home?

Does any of that come with 'victory points'? Minerals, mines, infrastructure?

[Crossroads]

I agree with respect to the communication from the White House. It is confusing. It is confounding and, at times, also frustrating. Please don't mistake my desire for peace to be an implicit acceptance of the public side of the current administration's efforts at diplomacy. But, as I've said, that is Trump. He confuses, he confounds, and he damn sure frustrates, but he gets results more often than not. People are actually seriously talking about peace and making deals. This to me signals progress behind closed doors.

Frustrates is putting it rather generously but why not. I could use other words, but it is not necessary. Today's WSJ editorial has this to say about a certain previous president who ended the Cold War:

Ronald Reagan, who also sought peace and achieved it, never shrank from telling the truth about the Soviet Union. The truth was an essential weapon in defeating what Reagan called an "evil empire."

I just don't see defanging Russia in perpetuity as a realistic outcome, which is what some seem to be suggesting as the only plausible path toward an agreeable peace. Russia is always going to have the means to make war, no matter how long this particular conflict goes on. It is never going to be a passive player in world politics. This is why I think peace through economics is a viable approach.

Peace through economics is certainly the viable option, I think we all agree to that. It is just so frustrating how the administration has publicly played the carrots and the sticks, let alone the generic comments about both parties. I quite prefer Ronald Reagan, let us put it that way.

[Pete Dero]

Can putin go back to the Russians and say we lost XXX people and materiel and I'm proud to announce we have won the Donbas and crimea - is that acceptable back at home?

He just has to cheat a bit more in the next 'free election'.

Russian TV is already displaying this like a victory.  He achieved his goals : 'liberating' the Donbas from the Nazis and Ukraine will never be part of Nato.

If trade sanctions are dropped he can keep paying the oligarchs and there isn't anyone else left to eject him from power. 
There are still plenty of windows in Russia to fall out of.

[FarAway Sooner]

I do think we need to be objective in evaluating all the possible outcomes. 

To go further with Skoop's metaphor above, I think ever since 1992 the West has relied (rather naively) on using "the economic carrot" to drive better behavior (short-term) and structural reform (long-term) on the part of almost every government in the world.  As far as that "long-term" piece:  Embracing a global market economy has helped liberalize Eastern Europe and much of Southeast Asia.  It's failed woefully with China and Russia. 

In terms of short-term benefits:  I agree with those here who say that authoritarian regimes view short-term economic concessions as "appeasement".  I'm not saying that it can't work, but we really need to understand what long-term incentives Putin will respond to. 

I suspect Ukraine will need to cede some national territory, but I suspect that anything that doesn't give Ukraine a reasonable long-term security guarantee isn't worth any more than the Budapest Memorandum that we all signed back in 1994.

One thing we all learned from the Sudetenland more than 90 years ago:  It is MUCH cheaper for NATO and the US to fund Ukraine to break Russia's nose today, as opposed to having to spend more on deterrence for the next 3 decades.

In the absence of any Russian interest in a long-term peace, I'm not sure I trust any solution that doesn't involve some sort of regime change in the Kremlin.  But I think that opportunity has probably passed...

[Pete Dero]

Putin said Monday that he would consider offering the United States access to rare earth minerals in Russian-occupied Ukraine.

In an interview broadcast on Russian state TV, Putin claimed a rare minerals deal between the US and Ukraine was of no concern to his country because Russia, he said, has "significantly more resources of this kind than Ukraine."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdx7488g5o
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-offer-sell-minerals-donald-trump-russia-occupied-ukraine/