| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 12:59 - Aug 16 with 3082 views | Darth_Koont |
I don’t see how this is acceptable to either Ukraine or indeed Russia.
Self-interested sphere of influence BS. |  |
|  |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 12:59 - Aug 16 with 3079 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
I think the NATO membership will be the biggest sticking point of any ‘negotiations’. I cannot see a world in which Putin agrees to let Ukraine join - he has an irrational fear of it, and will play back badly in Russia. For Ukraine though, NATO membership is the only thing that can guarantee their future security. Without it, Putin can rebuild his shattered forces over time, and come back for another crack.
If only Vladolf were to take an unfortunate tumble from his balcony. Mind you, given Russia’s penchant for tyrannical leaders, there’s no guarantee his successor won’t be even worse… |  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:09 - Aug 16 with 3020 views | DJR |
I am no expert, but it strikes me that things have reached a similar stalemate to the position in Ukraine post-2014, albeit that more land is now in Russian, or Russian proxies', hands.
Personally I can't see Russia ever being completely expelled from Russia, so to look at other possible solutions seems sensible.
Ukraine don't seem willing to contemplate this, and clearly it is up to them, but what will many years of stalemate actually achieve?
I might add that it may suit some in the West for the conflict to drag on, because it keeps Russia tied up.
But is a protracted conflict (with its worldwide impact on energy costs and food supplies) really in anyone's interest?
Of course, it may also be that Russia won't want to compromise, and until both parties do, it seems to me that any prospect of a peaceful solution is doomed. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 13:13]
|  | | |
| [Redacted] on 13:11 - Aug 16 with 3000 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 12:59 - Aug 16 by Darth_Koont |
I don’t see how this is acceptable to either Ukraine or indeed Russia.
Self-interested sphere of influence BS. |
[Redacted] |  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:12 - Aug 16 with 2976 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:09 - Aug 16 by DJR |
I am no expert, but it strikes me that things have reached a similar stalemate to the position in Ukraine post-2014, albeit that more land is now in Russian, or Russian proxies', hands.
Personally I can't see Russia ever being completely expelled from Russia, so to look at other possible solutions seems sensible.
Ukraine don't seem willing to contemplate this, and clearly it is up to them, but what will many years of stalemate actually achieve?
I might add that it may suit some in the West for the conflict to drag on, because it keeps Russia tied up.
But is a protracted conflict (with its worldwide impact on energy costs and food supplies) really in anyone's interest?
Of course, it may also be that Russia won't want to compromise, and until both parties do, it seems to me that any prospect of a peaceful solution is doomed. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 13:13]
|
Maybe the Ukrainians are happy to drag Russia into a quagmire like Afghanistan. The Russians left there empty handed when the number of body bags retuning home became unacceptable.
I’m just speculating here, but the Ukrainians should be able to decide their own destiny, and hopefully with support from the West as long as they want it. | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:13 - Aug 16 with 2978 views | blueasfook |
Unacceptable. If Ukraine agreed to that, Russia would just keep coming back every few years to whittle away some more Ukrainian territory. I think it's too late to get their borders back to pre-2014 annexation of Crimea but certainly Russia giving back what it has taken in the latest invasion should be the minimum starting point. |  |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:16 - Aug 16 with 2946 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:13 - Aug 16 by blueasfook |
Unacceptable. If Ukraine agreed to that, Russia would just keep coming back every few years to whittle away some more Ukrainian territory. I think it's too late to get their borders back to pre-2014 annexation of Crimea but certainly Russia giving back what it has taken in the latest invasion should be the minimum starting point. |
The Russians wouldn’t come back if Ukrainian NATO membership were achieved. | | | |
| [Redacted] on 13:19 - Aug 16 with 2937 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 12:59 - Aug 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
I think the NATO membership will be the biggest sticking point of any ‘negotiations’. I cannot see a world in which Putin agrees to let Ukraine join - he has an irrational fear of it, and will play back badly in Russia. For Ukraine though, NATO membership is the only thing that can guarantee their future security. Without it, Putin can rebuild his shattered forces over time, and come back for another crack.
If only Vladolf were to take an unfortunate tumble from his balcony. Mind you, given Russia’s penchant for tyrannical leaders, there’s no guarantee his successor won’t be even worse… |
[Redacted] | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| [Redacted] on 13:32 - Aug 16 with 2863 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:13 - Aug 16 by blueasfook |
Unacceptable. If Ukraine agreed to that, Russia would just keep coming back every few years to whittle away some more Ukrainian territory. I think it's too late to get their borders back to pre-2014 annexation of Crimea but certainly Russia giving back what it has taken in the latest invasion should be the minimum starting point. |
[Redacted] | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:51 - Aug 16 with 2776 views | DJR |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:12 - Aug 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Maybe the Ukrainians are happy to drag Russia into a quagmire like Afghanistan. The Russians left there empty handed when the number of body bags retuning home became unacceptable.
I’m just speculating here, but the Ukrainians should be able to decide their own destiny, and hopefully with support from the West as long as they want it. |
Of course, it is up to the Ukrainians, but they do depend on Western backing, and it could be argued that that backing has been very successful in ensuring Russia have made far fewer gains than I would have expected.
Putting it another way, Western support in Ukraine has got many bangs for its bucks thus far, but whether it will get the same bang for its bucks going forward is perhaps another matter.
On the other hand, perhaps some in the West are content for the conflict to drag on because it kicks into the long grass Ukraine's membership of NATO, which the last summit suggested was problematic. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:39]
| | | |
| [Redacted] on 14:10 - Aug 16 with 2721 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:51 - Aug 16 by DJR |
Of course, it is up to the Ukrainians, but they do depend on Western backing, and it could be argued that that backing has been very successful in ensuring Russia have made far fewer gains than I would have expected.
Putting it another way, Western support in Ukraine has got many bangs for its bucks thus far, but whether it will get the same bang for its bucks going forward is perhaps another matter.
On the other hand, perhaps some in the West are content for the conflict to drag on because it kicks into the long grass Ukraine's membership of NATO, which the last summit suggested was problematic. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:39]
|
[Redacted] | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:12 - Aug 16 with 2707 views | StokieBlue |
You've been pushing that Russian should essentially be rewarded for their two invasions of the Ukraine for months.
SB |  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:18 - Aug 16 with 2681 views | Blueschev |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 12:59 - Aug 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
I think the NATO membership will be the biggest sticking point of any ‘negotiations’. I cannot see a world in which Putin agrees to let Ukraine join - he has an irrational fear of it, and will play back badly in Russia. For Ukraine though, NATO membership is the only thing that can guarantee their future security. Without it, Putin can rebuild his shattered forces over time, and come back for another crack.
If only Vladolf were to take an unfortunate tumble from his balcony. Mind you, given Russia’s penchant for tyrannical leaders, there’s no guarantee his successor won’t be even worse… |
Taking any morality out of it, I'm not sure Putin's fear of Ukraine becoming a Nato member is irrational given Russia's history. I don't believe the Russians would accept it under any circumstances anyway. |  | | |
| [Redacted] on 14:21 - Aug 16 with 2673 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:12 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
You've been pushing that Russian should essentially be rewarded for their two invasions of the Ukraine for months.
SB |
[Redacted] | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:24 - Aug 16 with 2658 views | blueasfook |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:16 - Aug 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
The Russians wouldn’t come back if Ukrainian NATO membership were achieved. |
I honestly don't think Ukraine would ever gain NATO membership. Too much risk of a flashpoint and a wider war. NATO isnt going to up its chances of being drawn into a war with Russia by making Ukraine a member. It's just too risky. | |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:33 - Aug 16 with 2617 views | StokieBlue |
I think to myself and given some responses from other members of the forum over the last few months, many of your posts have certainly leaned towards a compromise with Russia which is essentially a reward - they will be getting something they wouldn't have had without an invasion.
If that's not your view then I've misinterpreted what you've been writing. Even posting this article seems to be pushing that narrative to me, hence my original response.
Please feel free clarify if that was not the case and what your actual position is.
What facts and evidence are presented in the article? I don't think there are any facts or evidence in the article - It's entirely one person thinking aloud and he's been heavily rebuffed:
"Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said at an event in Norway on Tuesday that while any peace deal would have to be acceptable to Ukraine, alliance members were discussing how the 18-month war might be brought to an end."
"Jenssen was careful to stress that he was simply airing an idea and that “it must be up to Ukraine to decide when and on what terms they want to negotiate”
"But this was not enough for Kyiv, unhappy that Jenssen, an important figure and close ally of Stoltenberg, was even discussing the proposition in public."
"Kyiv said any land-for-Nato deal would reward Russian aggression. Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said: “Trading territory for a Nato umbrella? It is ridiculous."
SB | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:42 - Aug 16 with 2574 views | gordon |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:24 - Aug 16 by blueasfook |
I honestly don't think Ukraine would ever gain NATO membership. Too much risk of a flashpoint and a wider war. NATO isnt going to up its chances of being drawn into a war with Russia by making Ukraine a member. It's just too risky. |
Who has the greater risk if there was a confrontation, though - if Russia invaded a NATO member, that would be game over for Russia as we know it, and whoever their leader was at the time. |  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:51 - Aug 16 with 2533 views | StokieBlue |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 13:16 - Aug 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
The Russians wouldn’t come back if Ukrainian NATO membership were achieved. |
It's arguable they would never have come if Ukraine hadn't been persuaded to give up their nuclear weapons by the US, UK and Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
SB | | | |
| [Redacted] on 14:52 - Aug 16 with 2527 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:33 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
I think to myself and given some responses from other members of the forum over the last few months, many of your posts have certainly leaned towards a compromise with Russia which is essentially a reward - they will be getting something they wouldn't have had without an invasion.
If that's not your view then I've misinterpreted what you've been writing. Even posting this article seems to be pushing that narrative to me, hence my original response.
Please feel free clarify if that was not the case and what your actual position is.
What facts and evidence are presented in the article? I don't think there are any facts or evidence in the article - It's entirely one person thinking aloud and he's been heavily rebuffed:
"Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said at an event in Norway on Tuesday that while any peace deal would have to be acceptable to Ukraine, alliance members were discussing how the 18-month war might be brought to an end."
"Jenssen was careful to stress that he was simply airing an idea and that “it must be up to Ukraine to decide when and on what terms they want to negotiate”
"But this was not enough for Kyiv, unhappy that Jenssen, an important figure and close ally of Stoltenberg, was even discussing the proposition in public."
"Kyiv said any land-for-Nato deal would reward Russian aggression. Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said: “Trading territory for a Nato umbrella? It is ridiculous."
SB |
[Redacted] | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:55 - Aug 16 with 2503 views | blueasfook |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:42 - Aug 16 by gordon |
Who has the greater risk if there was a confrontation, though - if Russia invaded a NATO member, that would be game over for Russia as we know it, and whoever their leader was at the time. |
A war between NATO and Russia would be game over for us all I think. | |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:55 - Aug 16 with 2502 views | Blueschev |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:33 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
I think to myself and given some responses from other members of the forum over the last few months, many of your posts have certainly leaned towards a compromise with Russia which is essentially a reward - they will be getting something they wouldn't have had without an invasion.
If that's not your view then I've misinterpreted what you've been writing. Even posting this article seems to be pushing that narrative to me, hence my original response.
Please feel free clarify if that was not the case and what your actual position is.
What facts and evidence are presented in the article? I don't think there are any facts or evidence in the article - It's entirely one person thinking aloud and he's been heavily rebuffed:
"Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said at an event in Norway on Tuesday that while any peace deal would have to be acceptable to Ukraine, alliance members were discussing how the 18-month war might be brought to an end."
"Jenssen was careful to stress that he was simply airing an idea and that “it must be up to Ukraine to decide when and on what terms they want to negotiate”
"But this was not enough for Kyiv, unhappy that Jenssen, an important figure and close ally of Stoltenberg, was even discussing the proposition in public."
"Kyiv said any land-for-Nato deal would reward Russian aggression. Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said: “Trading territory for a Nato umbrella? It is ridiculous."
SB |
I wouldn't see a "land-for-Nato" deal as rewarding Russia, isn't one of their main war aims the prevention of Ukrainian Nato membership? | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:01 - Aug 16 with 2474 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:55 - Aug 16 by Blueschev |
I wouldn't see a "land-for-Nato" deal as rewarding Russia, isn't one of their main war aims the prevention of Ukrainian Nato membership? |
Nope you’ve swallowed the Kool aid there, Putin’s ‘but NATO’ rubbish.. There was no realistic prospect of Ukrainian membership pre-war. It was purely a move to consume the rest of Ukraine following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. If that were his true goal, why did he not invade Finland to prevent them joining NATO (not to mention the fact that NATO has had a land border with Russia since the 1950’s). Furthermore had he gained control of Ukraine he’d have had not one, but four more NATO counties on his border.
That said our politicians’ feeble response to Crimea almost certainly emboldened Putin. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:03]
| | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:05 - Aug 16 with 2436 views | StokieBlue |
Thanks for clarifying your position.
I don't believe I have ever said that Russia was at war with NATO, it's clearly not correct and I don't believe it's something I would say. Given this perhaps you are confusing me with another poster?
One can only go with what you post here and those posts have mostly been about making concessions to Russia to end the war. Without clarification (which I still don't really think you have provided) then that position seems to be sympathetic to Russia as it rewards them and penalises Ukraine.
I can fully understand you would want an end to the war with your personal circumstances and especially as a parent but I think stating that the reasoning for the war is capitalists arms deals or construction contracts is also pretty offensive unless you have some pretty solid evidence to back it up. Let's not forget, there would be no war if Russia hadn't invaded.
SB | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:08 - Aug 16 with 2414 views | StokieBlue |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:55 - Aug 16 by Blueschev |
I wouldn't see a "land-for-Nato" deal as rewarding Russia, isn't one of their main war aims the prevention of Ukrainian Nato membership? |
I think we are at the point where their stated war aims are almost irrelevant. Ukraine wasn't close to joining NATA anyway.
You do have a point though, joined NATO might not been seen as a direct reward to Russia but in the end it has to be seen as one: Ukraine would have likely joined at some point in the future and this way Russia get the compensation of two large pieces of Ukraine in exchange for something that would have happened anyway.
It's fairly clear from the article that the Ukrainians see it as a non-starter, at least at the moment.
SB | | | |
| [Redacted] on 15:08 - Aug 16 with 2409 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:01 - Aug 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Nope you’ve swallowed the Kool aid there, Putin’s ‘but NATO’ rubbish.. There was no realistic prospect of Ukrainian membership pre-war. It was purely a move to consume the rest of Ukraine following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. If that were his true goal, why did he not invade Finland to prevent them joining NATO (not to mention the fact that NATO has had a land border with Russia since the 1950’s). Furthermore had he gained control of Ukraine he’d have had not one, but four more NATO counties on his border.
That said our politicians’ feeble response to Crimea almost certainly emboldened Putin. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:03]
|
[Redacted] | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
