War in Ukraine

[stevyy]

The moment Putin started the war, he must've known that he'd break several international laws, so I doubt that not getting sued would be an attractive offer for Putin.

he has to be sued, tho - as a war criminal.

[theMathematician]

I doubt that anything will happen though. It's been 9 months since the beginning of the war and apart from pretty much every Western politician with something to say calling this war wrong and Putin a war criminal, he's still in a very comfortable situation. We all just let him do his thing, and that's the scary part of the story.

[franklex]

Negotiations only work if there is something both parties could benefit from. Now what would it be for Russia if they are fully out of Ukrainian territory?

So you suggest to a murderer rich some benefits??? You want to show to Putin that his agression pays off???
And you do suggest for Ukraine to give its land to Russia as a present for all Russia did since 2014??
Or I do not get what exactly you mean....

What is the point of it? You give Putin mor therithory and think he will not do his agresion again?

[theMathematician]

Giving up some territory is always a sacrifice, but it's happened in the past without necessarily having the aggressor ask for more. Over the course of time, Germany had to give up parts of its territory to Poland, the Czech Republic and France as well. Sometimes such a huge step can actually bring former enemies together again.

[franklex]

I doubt that anything will happen though. It's been 9 months since the beginning of the war and apart from pretty much every Western politician with something to say calling this war wrong and Putin a war criminal, he's still in a very comfortable situation. We all just let him to his thing, and that's the scary part of the story.

Hold on, now, more and more poeple talking about tribunal for those who make war crimes and who give orders.
Russian economy just starts to struggle. I guess, it all will take time. At the very beggining we were discussin how europe will live without russian gas and how China will take it insted of EU. Look where we were and where are we now. I think we should wait for beggining of summer of 2023

[franklex]

Giving up some territory is always a sacrifice, but it's happened in the past without necessarily having the aggressor ask for more. Over the course of time, Germany had to give up parts of its territory to Poland, the Czech Republic and France as well. Sometimes such a huge step can actually bring former enemies together again.

This is not the case of russia. Russia is remain in war with Japan till nowadays. First of all it is not Ukraine (Germany) invaded Poland (Russia), so I do not see a reason to compare it.

Germany had to give up. It was not a will. It was payback, justice or something like that. If Ukraine give up its lands when it even did not start the war, so this is just a present not a "had to give up". I dont even talk about all that murders.... So this is very bad comparison. Same as you would suggest to a victim sacrifice to serial killerafter (after it cut off leg and hand and in the middle of process of cutting another hand) agrees on the sittuation, give him your cutted leg and "hope" it wont cut more.

"Sometimes such a huge step can actually bring former enemies together again" This comparison make sence only if Russia had to give some therithory to Ukraine as a step that can actually bring former enemies together. Or you mean Ukraine made similar actions as Nazi Germany? Ukraine invaded Russia, killed milions of russians etc...???

[theMathematician]

Or you mean Ukraine made similar actions as Nazi Germany?

Of course not. In that regard, Nazi Germany is way closer to Russia than the Ukraine. Ideally, the aggressor (back then Germany, now Russia) would have to bleed. There's a German saying that goes like 'the more clever one gives in'. Although we all know that Russia is in the wrong, would it be such a huge issue if the Ukraine still went the first step? The worse scenario would be an eternal war with both sides, the 'wrong' one (Russia) and the 'right' one (Ukraine) failing to make admissions to the other one.
The big, big problem is Russia being so untouchable at the moment. stevyy , you're an historian, so could you explain pragmatically how Nazi Germany got vulnerable enough to have to make those sacrifices in the end and how could Russia get there as well?

[stevyy]

Of course not. In that regard, Nazi Germany is way closer to Russia than the Ukraine. Ideally, the aggressor (back then Germany, now Russia) would have to bleed. There's a German saying that goes like 'the more clever one gives in'. Although we all know that Russia is in the wrong, would it be such a huge issue if the Ukraine still went the first step? The worse scenario would be an eternal war with both sides, the 'wrong' one (Russia) and the 'right' one (Ukraine) failing to make admissions to the other one.
The big, big problem is Russia being so untouchable at the moment. stevyy , you're an historian, so could you explain pragmatically how Nazi Germany got vulnerable enough to have to make those sacrifices in the end and how could Russia get there as well?

It's off topic. Ukraine should not give up one inch of its territory, including Crimea which should and will be returned to them.

In general, we should stay on topic.

I will say this, the world of today is regulated by international law - something which did exist back then (WW2) as well to some degree, but today almost all nations signed up to uphold it. Everything that Russia has done (since 2014) in regards to Ukraine has been illegal. They have no and I mean it, 0 legal standing in any territorial claims. The way Russia could get even the tiniest road or village out of it, is for Ukraine to agree to hand it over legally. Even in an outright military victory for Russia, I doubt that the west would accept any territorial gains by Russia since they remain illegal.

If we don't uphold international law and the integrity of nation states, then the entire planet is doomed. That is also why many people, politicians and civilans a like, want Ukraine to continue to fight not only for their freedom, but for everyone's safety. If Russia should get its will, we'll be basically back to the year 1900 in terms of international law.

[Artoo]

It's off topic. Ukraine should not give up one inch of its territory, including Crimea which should and will be returned to them.

In general, we should stay on topic.

I will say this, the world of today is regulated by international law - something which did exist back then (WW2) as well to some degree, but today almost all nations signed up to uphold it. Everything that Russia has done (since 2014) in regards to Ukraine has been illegal. They have no and I mean it, 0 legal standing in any territorial claims. The way Russia could get even the tiniest road or village out of it, is for Ukraine to agree to hand it over legally. Even in an outright military victory for Russia, I doubt that the west would accept any territorial gains by Russia since they remain illegal.

If we don't uphold international law and the integrity of nation states, then the entire planet is doomed. That is also why many people, politicians and civilans a like, want Ukraine to continue to fight not only for their freedom, but for everyone's safety. If Russia should get its will, we'll be basically back to the year 1900 in terms of international law.

You are completely correct. But realistically, what do you view as a legitimate means to end this war?

If Ukraine drive Russia out completely, that doesn’t mean the war is over: Russia has the means and capacity to continue a Sky offensive without putting a single troop over the border.

Russia also has the means to do this periodically, so every time Ukraine rebuilds its infrastructure, what is to stop Putin sending missiles to destroy it again?

That is why I keep saying negotiations must take place. This doesn’t mean surrendering land, but coming to an agreement to stop future military action.

I just think NATO is unlikely to admit Ukraine whilst they’re at war, and the EU isn’t a military union. Ukraine shouldn’t hold onto the idea of NATO without the confident formally ending - that’s just waiting for the calvary to arrive and isn’t an actual solution.

Russia is not going to hand Putin over for war crimes, and nobody is going to go in and get him. Even if they try him without him physically being there, I don’t see what impact that actually has.

[theMathematician]

I'm with Artoo here. I totally understand stevyy from a theoretical point of view, but his suggestions don't sound applicable in this specific case.

[franklex]

You are completely correct. But realistically...

But as always can not agree on othe point??? Again Nato is not a gaantiee and again negotiations for ngotiating with no any results??? And that is me who can not agee with other point, hahah....

If Ukraine drive Russia out completely, that doesn’t mean the war is over: Russia has the means and capacity to continue a Sky offensive without putting a single troop over the border.
Russia also has the means to do this periodically, so every time Ukraine rebuilds its infrastructure, what is to stop Putin sending missiles to destroy it again?

Can be solved when Ukaine will gets enough modern air defanse systems like Patiot for example. So if you try to solve this issue you will do it. Also russia wont be able to produce many missiles in the futue. And when Ukaine will rebuild infrastructure, like transformators russia simply will not know where they are located now. Latest missiles hits power infrastructure that was build during soviet era. At the many western countries this infrastructuree is quite hidden. I guess Ukraine will do the same. Also it make no snce to help Ukraine if russia will destroy it again and again.

That is why I keep saying negotiations must take place. This doesn’t mean surrendering land, but coming to an agreement to stop future military action.

Your saying is a welcome for future military action and genocide and theroror in those lands that russia will control one way or another. Look Kherson, Donetsk, Izyum, Bucha, Borodyanka, Mariupol and so on...

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
"The Russian invasion of Ukraine did not come as a surprise.
Months before the attack NATO shared intelligence showing that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine.
And despite all our efforts to find a diplomatic solution Putin went ahead with his plans."

What negotiations you are keep saying is just a mistery... Like none did it before or probably even did not think about it...

Ukraine shouldn’t hold onto the idea of NATO without the confident formally ending - that’s just waiting for the calvary to arrive and isn’t an actual solution.

None even said this.
Henry Kissinger changes tack: After the way Russia has behaved in Ukraine, ... Ukraine has to be treated in the aftermath of this as a member of NATO.”. In may this man suggested that Ukraine give up territory to Russia.
Till the "end" of this war Ukraine will be a member of Nato with Nato weapons and trained in the West armd forces with western air defence and tanks and firejets. When Sweden and Finland joined they alrady had all of this. But seriously Nato membership will be discussed next year I guess.

This is a remind for you from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:

But the price we pay is in money.
While the price the Ukrainians pay is in blood.
If authoritarian regimes see that force is rewarded we will all pay a much higher price.

[franklex]

It's off topic. Ukraine should not give up one inch of its territory, including Crimea which should and will be returned to them.

In general, we should stay on topic.

I will say this, the world of today is regulated by international law - something which did exist back then (WW2) as well to some degree, but today almost all nations signed up to uphold it. Everything that Russia has done (since 2014) in regards to Ukraine has been illegal. They have no and I mean it, 0 legal standing in any territorial claims. The way Russia could get even the tiniest road or village out of it, is for Ukraine to agree to hand it over legally. Even in an outright military victory for Russia, I doubt that the west would accept any territorial gains by Russia since they remain illegal.

If we don't uphold international law and the integrity of nation states, then the entire planet is doomed. That is also why many people, politicians and civilans a like, want Ukraine to continue to fight not only for their freedom, but for everyone's safety. If Russia should get its will, we'll be basically back to the year 1900 in terms of international law.

I do Agree with every word. And your suggestions do sound applicable in this specific case as well as none expected with the case with Slobodan Milošević.

[Mainshow]

Negotiation at this point is neither realistic nor applicable.

They will neither end the war nor result into some sort of ceasefire.

This might be a "legitimate mean" if both parties are really interested in peace and fighting over a disputed territory.

In this case, Ukraine face an imperial power run by a fascist regime which has explicitly announced that the existence of Ukraine is a "historical mistake". Russia is committing acts of genocide in Ukraine and they want to annex foreign land, colonise it and russify its citizens.

Like Macron said, negotiation is only an option IF Putin (and his elite) starts to think rationally again.

As franklex rightfully pointed it out, there has been negotiations BEFORE the war and Russia has assured to not invade Ukraine SEVERAL TIMES to multiple world leaders. There have been treaties and negotiations to respect the sovereignity of Ukraine....
You canīt "negotiate" peace with a mad and fascist Nazi.
Just think of the German–Polish declaration of non-aggression.... Hitler still invaded Poland - despite negotiations.
Hitler still invaded the Czech Republic - even they gave up territories to Germany (and both parties signed a treaty/agreement).

Even IF Ukraine negotiates peace and gives up UKRAINIAN (!) territories to Russia, Russia wonīt stop.

[Mainshow]

Of course not. In that regard, Nazi Germany is way closer to Russia than the Ukraine. Ideally, the aggressor (back then Germany, now Russia) would have to bleed. There's a German saying that goes like 'the more clever one gives in'. Although we all know that Russia is in the wrong, would it be such a huge issue if the Ukraine still went the first step? The worse scenario would be an eternal war with both sides, the 'wrong' one (Russia) and the 'right' one (Ukraine) failing to make admissions to the other one.
The big, big problem is Russia being so untouchable at the moment. stevyy , you're an historian, so could you explain pragmatically how Nazi Germany got vulnerable enough to have to make those sacrifices in the end and how could Russia get there as well?

How did giving "Sudetenland" to Nazi Germany ("the more clever one gives in") work out for the outcome of World War II?
Did it bring peace to Europe and did Nazi Germany stop being fascist and imperial?

[theMathematician]

Those are probably questions directed at stevyy as he's got way more knowledge on German history than I do.

[Mainshow]

Iīm also quite shocked about the comment that "Gemany gave Poland some territories" and "peace will come" (I know that you didnīt phrase it like that).
Itīs a very romantic way of looking at things.

What Stalin and Churchill discussed had been utterly traumatic to Central Europe and caused ethnic cleansing.
Poland lost in that scenario (even though German had to give up lands and provide them to Poland). Poland LOST 47% of its territory and the "glorious liberators" (the Soviet Union) annexed it.

Itīs wrong to award mass murderers who committed genocide that way. It will lead to more acts of war in the long run - it didnīt stop the Soviet Union/Russia from becoming what it is today. Such neogations have never brought peace to anyone.

[Mainshow]

Those are probably questions directed at stevyy as he's got way more knowledge on German history than I do.

Those were rhetorical questions.

Treaties with mass murderers and fascists didnīt end wars in the last centurry and they wonīt be bringing peace to this imperal and colonial war.

[Artoo]

The world is built on trust and gentlemen agreements. Laws only work if people agree to abide by them and the consequences of breaking them only means something if such consequences can be carried out. Russia has demonstrated it does not care about international law and proven that beyond starting WWIII, there is basically nothing the world can do about it.

The world is held together in such a delicate way and Russia is exploiting that, alongside the fact that no one is going to openly declare war on Russia.

[Rihab]

I agree. Breaking the law has to have consequences, or else it will happen again and again. You give someone like Putin a finger, he'll devour your whole arm and then come back to take what's left of you bite by bite.

You could argue that Crimea was the finger we gave him in 2014. If the west hadn't been so weak back then, maybe this current war would have never happened in the first place. We must not repeat our (mostly Merkel's and Hollande's) mistakes. We were foolish enough to negotiate back then. And failed. Not again. Russia must not gain anything from this war. And Russia must be punished.

If Putin is allowed to sell this war as a success to his people, it's just a matter of time until they try again. And Chine tries the same with Taiwan. Turkey with Kurdish regions in Syria. Serbia with Kosovo. Argentine with the Falklands. Hell, we might even inspire certain political forces within Germany, Italy and Japan. Can we not? The whole world is watching. Is there literally ANY country on this planet that isn't pissed about some piece of land it's lost in the past? Let's not give them ideas. The last thing we need is more wars.

We can ''negotiate'' once Ukraine has taken back every last square inch of its territory. Not a day sooner. And only negotiate over how many hundreds of billions Moscow has to pay in reparations so that Kiev doesn't bomb THEM.

[Rihab]

On a side note, the Ukrainian family we gave my grandma's house to has decided it's (currently) safe enough to move back to Odessa. They're leaving this weekend. God, hope they're right.

[ferrero]

We can ''negotiate'' once Ukraine has taken back every last square inch of its territory. Not a day sooner. And only negotiate over how many hundreds of billions Moscow has to pay in reparations so that Kiev doesn't bomb THEM.

This kind of wishful thinking is what is keeping the war from ending.

[Rihab]

This kind of wishful thinking is what is keeping the war from ending.

It's not wishful thinking, it's the only option.

Negotiations and an ''end'' to the war now means Putin wins, means giving his troops time to recover, means giving them a chance to learn their lessons from this less successful than expected ''round'', means the next (worse) round can happen a few years down the line.

''Peace'' (if you can even call it that) in this case really means war forever. And more wars everywhere.

[ferrero]

Your definition of "win" is naive and will not happen. What is keeping Ukraine afloat is the weapons and funding from US and they are not going to get them, especially funding, so easy now that Republicans have won the House, which is why Biden is now "ready" to talk to Putin

Joe Biden says he is prepared to speak to Putin about ending Ukraine war | Financial Times (ft.com)
Biden Says He Is Willing to Talk to Putin About Ukraine, With Conditions - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

I believe Macron will be visiting Beijing soon to talk to Xi.

[Mainshow]

It's not wishful thinking, it's the only option.

Negotiations and an ''end'' to the war now means Putin wins, means giving his troops time to recover, means giving them a chance to learn their lessons from this less successful than expected ''round'', means the next (worse) round can happen a few years down the line.

''Peace'' (if you can even call it that) in this case really means war forever. And more wars everywhere.

This!

Itīs blatantly naive to think that negotations with a fascist mass murderer will bring "peace" at all - they just want more and if Ukraine will gain "peace" by giving up their sovereignity and a lot of their territory, Russia will continue wanting more and more.

Just look at Chechnya and Dagestan, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia, Crimea, Crimea, the Donbass and now, two additional regions of Ukraine (+ their aim to destroy Ukrainian culture).

Whoīs next?

And stop talking about "the only way to end this is either giving Russia what it wants or start WWIII" - Thatīs polemic and submissive to the core.
Russia can invade several neighbours (Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine) and sent troops to them for several reasons (hello Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan) and proclaim genocidal intentions - but if the West sends weapons to Ukraine and Ukraine wants to push out all invaders from THEIR territory, we are on the brink of WWIII?

[theMathematician]

So, now that both sides called each other's views 'naive', how do we go on from there?