Russia's War Against Ukraine

[JudgeDredd]

Thank you Toonces for putting your view so eloquently. I feel for you brother, and my fellow countrymen (detached by several generations - but we know where you come from    ) across the pond (or the North American Ocean as it's presumably soon to be called).

I would just like this to be reiterated - because aside from the sniping and digging and shouting, this, in my view, was just so belittling...

Marjorie Taylor Greene's husband asked him if he even had a suit...and the laughter that went round was simply disgusting.

Think about that just for a second. This man's country has been invaded by an evil dictator with no regard for borders, his people are constantly being bombed, his soldiers are spilling THEIR blood on the battlefield...and he's asked if he's got a suit and everyone laughed. This is the man that refused to leave Ukraine on the eve of the invasion and asked for bullets.

And they were laughing at whether he had a suit or not. 

And again - I think I should point out, if you are doing something and the Russian government "likes it", you're doing something wrong - or people don't know what side you are on. And it's clear Russia really, really likes what went on in the Oval Office.

[Skoop]

The Ukraine issue was the single most divisive issue for me in endorsing trump as the Republican nominee.  I hard campaigned against him in the primaries because I knew the handling of this would turn out like this.  I was dead set on Nicky Haley or desantis would handle this better.  In reality it would have just been status quo with the war dragging on. 

I didn't vote for trump or Kamala, after seeing doge dismantle USAID and all the wasteful near fraudulent taxpayer spending I kind of soften on trump and kind of adopted a let's give him some slack a see what he can accomplish.  Dressing down Zelenzky on tv is not what I had in mind.

I mean maybe in trump world, this is perfectly fine and the deal is still on its path, I might be too much of an optimist. 

The historian in me is screaming red flags though.  I mean what if Churchill was dressed down and humiliated live in the Oval Office after Dunkirk and he made a trip to secure lend lease equipment? How that would have been perceived historically and how will this be perceived in generations to follow ?

[Pete Dero]

I mean what if Churchill was dressed down and humiliated live in the Oval Office after Dunkirk and he made a trip to secure lend lease equipment?

At least Churchill wore a suit  .

[Skoop]

I know, the suit is no big deal for me.  I like Zelensky's no suit till peace solidarity with the troops symbol.  And yes seeing / hearing trailer trash MTG laugh at zelensky and the no suit was disgusting.  It not only shamefully felt unAmerican, it made me ashamed for being trailer trash my self, she gives white trash a bad name.

[JasonPratt]

I am a simple person. It often is what it seems to be it is. President Trump promised to negotiate "peace", Putin gives him friendly words, while Zelenskyi refuses to sign a ceasefire under Russia's terms.

I'm pretty sure Russia's terms for a ceasefire are 'give us all your land and all your resources and also die'. Which was not what Trump was offering or aiming for. But Trump also may not understand that Putin cannot be trusted for a ceasefire. If there was a planned ambush (which I agree seems plausible) they might have been angling for Zelensky to trip over the "ceasefire" language publicly thus "trying to litigate" the terms in front of the cameras.

Professor (of Russian Politics) Sam Greene of King's College

It was abundantly clear that the US administration would be guided by the following "principles" (I use the word hesitantly):
1️⃣🇺🇸 transactional interests trump all others
2️⃣ The velocity of exit from 🇺🇦 trumps the quality of exit
3️⃣ Normalization with🇷🇺 is a priority

Following from these "principles" are 3 logical conclusions:
1️⃣ 🇺🇸 is unperturbed by the geo-strategic consequences of its exit from 🇺🇦
2️⃣ 🇺🇸 feels it has greater leverage over 🇺🇦 than 🇷🇺
3️⃣ the only route to a rapid exit is thus for 🇺🇦 to make maximum concessions

P1 I agree is true. (Not agreeing that ought to be true in all cases.)
P2 I'm (sadly) agnostic about right now. I appreciate the puns for P1 and P2 however.
P3 Unless the EU + GB has radically changed its tune and decided to conquer Russia when I wasn't looking, is also a principle agreed to by the EU + GB. Different administrations have differed over how to accomplish this (e.g. importing Russian natural gas or not).

C1 I think is false by unrealistic oversimplification. What geo-strategic consequences the US administration is willing to accept, I'm unsure about. Which may be a Trump strategy, as he has done this before.
C2 I not only agree the US "feels" this is true, but I think the US has validly logical factual reasons to believe this is true.
C3 I don't think this is true in a couple of ways: first, T was offering Z "all the cards" for supremacy over Russian interests in Ukraine (thus over what Putin thinks Russia and Putin himself need for survival!) That isn't exiting from UA, and that isn't "maximum concessions" from UA, which by RU standards would be UA ceasing to exist as a nation and its people liquidated. Second, T can "exit UA" literally at any moment without getting any concessions at all from UA. If US does exit UA then P might be able to achieve RU goals for UA, and that is indeed an existential threat T is looming over Z. Whether Trump ought to be using that as a threat, is debatable. I don't think it's debatable that Trump has a responsibility as the US CEO to get a clear understanding about how US arms and funds will be used by Z. I might allow that it's debatable whether T should automatically agree with any use of US arms and funds by Z (though I would argue "no".)


Prof Greene continues

Seen from here, 🇺🇸 isn't behaving like an angry ally — it's behaving like an adversary, willing to undermine gov'ts in order to achieve zero-sum aims.

I don't know what Prof Greene means by achieving zero-sum aims (though I suppose he means "goals" by "aims"). Trading Kursk-held territory for Donbas and the Crimea? -- big win for Ukraine! Going back to pre-2022 borders? -- not what Russia needs for its kleptocracy to survive (figuratively and in some cases literally), so still a big win for Ukraine! (Not a big win Z and/or his cabinet may be willing to accept, admittedly.) Russia will have fatally crippled itself for no gain: big win for Ukraine and everyone else in Russia's reach. I assume Prof Greene means something else by achieving zero-sum. Maybe that was in non-quoted material.

The problem is, 🇪🇺+🇬🇧 do not know how 🇺🇸 will respond to attempts to keep 🇺🇦 afloat, if those get in the way of 🇺🇸 normalization with 🇷🇺. As a result, 🇪🇺+🇬🇧 face trying to manage escalation on two fronts simultaneously.

As ever since 2014, and more so since 2022, the cost of this escalation management will fall to 🇺🇦, unless 🇪🇺+🇬🇧 can impose a solution that captures the initiative from 🇺🇸.

My bolds. I only want to point out that, rightly or wrongly, eptly or ineptly, US is currently trying to manage de-escalating both Russia and Ukraine.

[JasonPratt]

Now, what if the Trump administration knew no deal could be made with Russia.
Remember, we have not heard anything yet about any concessions that Russia would be willing to make.
Rather than admitting this, why not put on the show we have watched and blame the failure on Zelensky.

Of course I have no proof of this but what I have seen happening in the last few days made me think of this possibility.

I have to agree this seems plausible.  It would fit with my theory (several posts above) that Trump really did (and maybe still does) not understand that Russia's existential threat to Ukraine is based in Russia's existential threat to itself, which Russia needs Ukraine liquidated to stave off. If Trump can/could not find an offer that Putin would consider acceptable for his own survival, then Trump either has to agree (in any of various ways) to the death that Russia's government has chosen for itself, or Trump has find an emergency excuse for his own failed boast to bring peace and stop the dying. It might not even be an emergency ripcord for Trump's ego (though I could believe that, too): agreeing to the death that Russia's government has chosen for itself sooner rather than later, also escalates the risk of WW3 and/or nuclear exchange, which Trump could be trying to avoid.

"You're gambling with millions of people's lives! -- you're gambling with WW3!!" isn't only a pressure on Zelensky. It's also a pressure on Trump.

[JasonPratt]

Meanwhile, let's see how GB+EU is doing today, posted by Jacob Burg at the Epoch Times:

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on March 2 that Europe must continue to provide funding for Ukraine to sustain its position during peace negotiations, while also committing to roughly $2 billion in export financing to supply Ukraine with 5,000 air defense missiles.

Starmer hosted a security summit in London on Sunday with other European and world leaders as Britain, France, and Ukraine work on a cease-fire plan to present to the United States as an effort to end the Russia–Ukraine war.

Starmer emphasized that despite the breakdown in talks at the White House on Feb. 28, the United States remains an important ally to Britain.

"The U.S. has been a reliable ally to the U.K. for many, many decades and continues to be," Starmer said. "There are no two countries as closely aligned as our two countries."

Starmer said he is working on a Ukraine peace plan intended to receive U.S. backing and warned that Europe must do the heavy work of defending itself.

Starmer's March 2 summit of leaders stands in contrast to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's meeting in the White House on Feb. 28, during which U.S. President Donald Trump scolded him for not being ready for peace and not being grateful for America's support in his nation's defense against Russia's three-year-long invasion.

Starmer said he's working on restoring discussions of peace and is using the breakdown on Feb. 28 as an opportunity to reengage with Trump, Zelenskyy, and French President Emmanuel Macron rather than "ramp up the rhetoric."

"We've now agreed that the United Kingdom, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, and then we'll discuss that plan with the United States," Starmer told the BBC, adding that he and Macron have both spoken to Trump since the latter's meeting with Zelenskyy.

At the Feb. 28 summit, European leaders will look toward shoring up the continents' defenses in defending Ukraine, including discussions to create a European military force to send to the war-torn country to cap a cease-fire. Starmer suggested the military force would include a "coalition of the willing."

While he does not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin, Starmer said he trusts Trump.

"Do I believe Donald Trump when he says he wants lasting peace? The answer to that is yes," he said.

Starmer added that "intense discussions" to obtain a security guarantee from the United States are one of the three components of lasting peace.

"If there is to be a deal, if there is to be a stopping of the fighting, then that agreement has to be defended, because the worst of all outcomes is that there is a temporary pause, and then Putin comes again," Starmer said. "That has happened in the past. I think it is a real risk, and that is why we must ensure that if there's a deal, it is a lasting deal, not a temporary pause."

The summit, which will be held at Lancaster House—a 200-year-old mansion near Buckingham Palace—will also include leaders from France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Canada, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, and Romania.

Other attendees include the Turkish foreign minister, NATO secretary-general, and the presidents of the European Commission and European Council.

Zelenskyy received support from European leaders after the contentious Feb. 28 meeting at the White House in which a rare earths deal was abandoned and Trump told Zelenskyy to come back when he was ready for peace.

After the Ukrainian president arrived in Britain on March 1, Starmer embraced him.

"As you heard from the cheers on the street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom," Starmer said. "We stand with you, with Ukraine, for as long as it may take."

Starmer also pledged to boost military spending to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2027. Other European nations might follow suit.

On Saturday, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said European countries must increase military spending to at least 3 percent of GDP as the continent faces a historic test in defending itself.

"If we don't increase our effort fast enough and let the aggressor dictate its conditions, we won't end up well," he said.

In calling for unity among his European neighbors, Macron embraced more defense spending after saying it was legitimate for the United States to shift its military focus to China and Asia.

"We should have woken up earlier," Macron said. "I've been saying for years that we need a more sovereign, more united, more independent Europe."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Pete Dero]

Every day there are around 1.500 Russian casualties (including wounded) for a gain of around 1 square mile.

But in Russia this means we don't need peace because we are winning  .
And if the tide would turn on them they'll start threatening with nuclear war again.

How do you make deals with such a nation ?

[JasonPratt]

That's the look Trump/Vance could have had, for the same stated goals, instead of y'know...     

That said, I might not be surprised if I learned that the "ambush" was not only real, but was a joint plan to bad-cop/good-cop Z diplomatically.

That said, I didn't see anything in that report (possibly missing salient details) which offsets Putin's self-inflicted Russia-existential-crisis for which he's trying to kill Ukraine to stave off a while longer. At least they acknowledged the point Z was trying to make in the White House about a ceasefire.

[JasonPratt]

Every day there are around 1.500 Russian casualties (including wounded) for a gain of around 1 square mile.

But in Russia this means we don't need peace because we are winning  .
And if the tide would turn on them they'll start threatening with nuclear war again.

How do you make deals with such a nation ?

Tis a real puzzlement! -- and at this point I'm not sure they're even one square mile ahead on the exchange since 2022!

But from Putin's standpoint they have to keep going or Russia (more pertinently Putin) is sure to die sooner rather than later.

How do you make deals with that? -- I mean how does anyone, US, GB, EU, UA? (China?! Might as well keep them in the geopolitical account because they'll be looking to profit as much as possible from the situation. Whatever else he did, Putin screwed China out of getting a Black Sea Port for their Belt and Road Initiative / New Silk Road project.)

If a deal cannot / will not be feasibly accepted by Putin, what's left over? Giving Putin the EU? Sacrificing UA for ten more years of building up for a new serious Cold War border buildup? Killing the hell out of Russia now, hopefully faster than they can launch useable nukes, and accepting maximum Russian casualties as the minimum price for peace?

I'm no fan of the Biden-Harris admin, but I do try to bend over backward to be fair: slow-walking the fight on the ground, playing for time until Russia is exhausted and then offering to save them (presumably), might be the best of a bunch of bad solutions. 

[JasonPratt]

I'm sure I don't agree with Bill Whittle this time some things -- he seems to forget that the battle lines have not stayed where they were {coughcoughKurskhack!}, which I think is good for negotiating a settlement (and is certainly what Z wants from that territory, trading it back for equivalent amounts of occupied territory). Also I think Bill is flip-flopping somewhat about the distinction between an ally and a friend in order to critique Z's approach at the White House.

But I do agree with a lot of it, and since the comparison with Churchill's visit (and situation) in WW2 has been made, Bill runs with that comparison:

[Father Ted]

Trump has decided to turn a war into a business opportunity - Ukraine can choose to be either shafted by Putin or the US

[Skoop]

I always said that about America dealings in Africa. Brics is trying to do what America does with these 3rd world countries, and could have guessed, russia and china are just as if not more predatory than western capitalism.  At least when america fuqs you in the a$$, you might get some lube and a reach around.  China and russia will just fuq you.

[planetbrain]

I appreciate what Rubio has to say here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inSFmTVl-ME
I do not appreciate Zelenskyy being called a dictator nor the dressing down he got from Trump & Vance.
Why belittle the man?

[JasonPratt]

I don't see how Ukraine is "being shafted" by the US yet; certainly if the Uks go down the US profits nothing. Ukraine can't get those r.e.m.s out of the ground, processed, shipped and sold while the war is going on, and a 50% share of profits doesn't go on indefinitely. Up until today (I haven't checked the details) Europe's contributions have been largely or entirely with payback conditions; why should the US be different? Reconstruction of Ukraine would start and finish sooner than later; they arm up for defense a lot faster and better than Russia will be able to arm up for attack again. How does giving Ukraine "all the cards" = "being shafted by the US"? Are we going to nuke their country into a sheet of glass and pavement? How many fewer thousands will we kill than Putin before we're not shafting them like Putin? If we don't literally kill Ukrainian schoolchildren with iron bars wrapped in barbed wire, have we finally gotten to the not-shafting of Ukraine?

I've heard from a different interview than the ABC one linked above, Rubio said that Zelensky was specifically told not to lecture the US about diplomacy in front of the cameras, but he did it anyway. OK, points for being willing to go down in a sea of blood to piss off Trump on camera, but how does that help Ukraine? Z had previously agreed to the deal, he was looking for a way to jump off the deal so he could say "look how they treated me, there could be no deal". And I agree Z had good points! -- but overall (and especially if Rubio was correct about Z being warned not to diss diplomacy in public) Z was the one who sabotaged the meeting, in public, on camera. He probably thought he could get a better deal from the EU without cease-fire strings attached, and he bet correctly: they felt sorry for him after being 'bullied' by T&V.

And, maybe that will turn out to be the better deal in reality. The worst that could happen is he'd have to go back and accept the US deal later, no one but T&V would be hurt by it, and then only in public relations which they'll have lots of opportunity to get over. Heck, being mocked by MJT & company as a preliminary may have been when Z decided to torch the meeting and see if he could nope out. (Although a White House staffer reported that Z did want to sign the support deal after the news conference and Trump wouldn't let him, insisting Z leave and come back when he's ready to talk peace.)

I'll note a troubling point from Rubio's ABC interview linked above: he keeps acting like the admin doesn't know what kind of terms Putin would accept, but... did I only dream that we already met with Putin in Saudi Arabia or somewhere like that last week, and people complained we didn't invite Z (like we didn't invite P to the White House for the meeting Friday)? If that meeting went by without any (at least useful) notion of what Putin would accept, then I can't say I'm surprised (because Putin's life and nation are also at stake from his perspective, supervillain though he is) but still that can't have boded well. 

Sorry for the rambling, it's late-ish here and I'm tired.