|
Rust Martialis posted:honest lawyers "military intelligence" E: "good snipe"
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Oscar Wilde Bunch posted:They can't join NATO, but they're allowed to have a article 5 like security guarantee? Yes, it seems to be a draft peace treaty from just after the war started, a couple of months in at most, not a current document. I also think that no matter how tired the Ukrainians are, they'd know it would just be a prelude to more Russian bullshit and deniable trash like the Donbass "rebels," assassinations of pro-Western politicians, etc. putting off an inevitability rather than some sort of fresh start. I think they'd have to be a lot more desperate or a lot more stupid to ever sign this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:08
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Yes, it seems to be a draft peace treaty from just after the war started, a couple of months in at most, not a current document. This poo poo always seems to blow up on Telegram whenever Russian propaganda is spinning up, which seems to have happened this week due to the aid bill passing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Oscar Wilde Bunch posted:They can't join NATO, but they're allowed to have a article 5 like security guarantee? hätte können - absolutely past tense. "The secret document that could have ended the war in Ukraine", first paragraph identifies it as dating to shortly after the war began and calls it favorable in retrospect compared to the 2 years of war endured instead. Which I disagree with, but whatever, I'm not paying to read the rest of this. I remember this being reported on at the time so I guess the thing that Die Welt has an exclusive on is the actual text rather than mostly accurate recounting from people who saw it or were there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:27
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:"military intelligence" Two words combined that cant make sense!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
Also as in the first time those ideas were floated two years ago, there’s very very very little chance of any countries volunteering to provide those security guarantees. Even if someone is willing, without having troops based in country as a tripwire I’m not sure how reliable those guarantees would be. More importantly perhaps, how much of a deterrent would they be to Russia if the Russians have doubts about the guarantor countries willingness to fight? Especially without the headlines that 40 American/British/French/German soldiers had been killed in a Russian missile strike at the outbreak of the war or w/e to rile up public opinion, I’m not sure how many western countries would send their troops into an active war. The poles and the baltic states are probably a different story, but as Ukraine I’m not sure I’d be willing to bet my future security on Poland alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
tiaz posted:hätte können - absolutely past tense. "The secret document that could have ended the war in Ukraine", first paragraph identifies it as dating to shortly after the war began and calls it favorable in retrospect compared to the 2 years of war endured instead. Which I disagree with, but whatever, I'm not paying to read the rest of this. How is it secret though? Russia was openly touting this as the way out like days after it started? Some secret.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How is it secret though? Russia was openly touting this as the way out like days after it started? you'd have to ask Gregor Schwung 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:01
|
|
|
Russia is outproducing the US with regards to artillery. Here's a good video on it. I like the host, Chris. He's a good journalist in that he gives you his biases up front and tries to give you unbiased information. https://youtu.be/UKs1mERKE14?si=8OXfmgMGFDLcrxhU
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:16
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Also as in the first time those ideas were floated two years ago, there’s very very very little chance of any countries volunteering to provide those security guarantees. Even if someone is willing, without having troops based in country as a tripwire I’m not sure how reliable those guarantees would be. More importantly perhaps, how much of a deterrent would they be to Russia if the Russians have doubts about the guarantor countries willingness to fight? Especially without the headlines that 40 American/British/French/German soldiers had been killed in a Russian missile strike at the outbreak of the war or w/e to rile up public opinion, I’m not sure how many western countries would send their troops into an active war. The poles and the baltic states are probably a different story, but as Ukraine I’m not sure I’d be willing to bet my future security on Poland alone. Also, also - wasn't Ukraine already in theory covered by security guarantees from back when they gave up their nukes after the USSR collapse? I can't imagine they'd be too keen on going that route again when it so demonstrably did nothing last time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Also, also - wasn't Ukraine already in theory covered by security guarantees from back when they gave up their nukes after the USSR collapse? I can't imagine they'd be too keen on going that route again when it so demonstrably did nothing last time. It sounds like you're talking about the Budapest Memorandum, which was a toothless non-treaty that offered nothing concrete to Ukraine and basically ceased to matter the second Putin came into power. Naturally, Russia would be eager to adopt a new framework that was more or less identical to Budapest, only with them getting territory ceded to them. It would let them back off, rearm, and come back to the apple to take another bite out of it on their own terms. A.o.D. fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:48
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Russia is outproducing the US with regards to artillery. Here's a good video on it. I like the host, Chris. He's a good journalist in that he gives you his biases up front and tries to give you unbiased information. I mean, is anyone really surprised given the emphasis on massed artillery in Soviet/Russian doctrine, especially when compared to NATO countries that don't really go all in on that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Also, also - wasn't Ukraine already in theory covered by security guarantees from back when they gave up their nukes after the USSR collapse? I can't imagine they'd be too keen on going that route again when it so demonstrably did nothing last time. Yeah the Budapest Memorandum gave Ukraine 'security assurances' from the signatory nations, not 'security guarantees.' It basically said 'if you give up your nuclear weapons (which weren't really under Ukraine's control anyway) we, the undersigned (US, UK, and Russia) promise not to attack you, and if someone nukes you or threatens to nuke you we'll bring it up at the UN Security Council.' Those security assurances (we promise to respect your territorial integrity and not attack you) often get misunderstood as security guarantees (if you are attacked, we will come to your defense).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure a guarantee would have been worth anything here; the US and UK could simply look at Russia coming over the border, say "gently caress getting involved with that, good luck Kiev" and just let Ukraine get steamrolled. Who's going to sue the guarantors? The now-dead government of Ukraine? Who would enforce the guarantee? The Security Council? Sure, the guarantors lose some credibility and give other nations a step or two towards displacing them as the world cops but that arguably doesn't matter over any political planning horizon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:22
|
|
|
Midjack posted:I'm not sure a guarantee would have been worth anything here; the US and UK could simply look at Russia coming over the border, say "gently caress getting involved with that, good luck Kiev" and just let Ukraine get steamrolled. Who's going to sue the guarantors? The now-dead government of Ukraine? Who would enforce the guarantee? The Security Council? Sure, the guarantors lose some credibility and give other nations a step or two towards displacing them as the world cops but that arguably doesn't matter over any political planning horizon. The thing that makes a security guarantee worth anything is the same thing that makes your money worth anything. You have to believe it's real, the person you're dealing with has to believe it's real, and there has to be an enforcement mechanism making it real. For a security guarantee to work, it would take a credible threat of enforcement to dissuade a potential aggressor, which in the case of Ukraine would probably have to be nothing less than permanent NATO presence and enough evident political will to go to war if Russia chooses to roll over that speed bump. After all, I'm sure some people thought that maybe NATO wouldn't go to war over Germany, but the threat was real enough that T34s and T54s never came through the Fulda gap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:32
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:The thing that makes a security guarantee worth anything is the same thing that makes your money worth anything. You have to believe it's real, the person you're dealing with has to believe it's real, and there has to be an enforcement mechanism making it real. For a security guarantee to work, it would take a credible threat of enforcement to dissuade a potential aggressor, which in the case of Ukraine would probably have to be nothing less than permanent NATO presence and enough evident political will to go to war if Russia chooses to roll over that speed bump. I would argue that the US and the West are indeed standing behind and providing the security guarantee of the Budapest Memorandum. There was nothing formal in the agreement about just how the signatories would guarantee Ukraine's safety, so they were certainly not obligated to send any troops, but sending aid and arms certainly fits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I would argue that the US and the West are indeed standing behind and providing the security guarantee of the Budapest Memorandum. There was nothing formal in the agreement about just how the signatories would guarantee Ukraine's safety, so they were certainly not obligated to send any troops, but sending aid and arms certainly fits. I am inclined to agree, especially since I've said basically that exact thing in this very thread. The thing is, Russia didn't believe it was real, which is why they invaded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:38
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:The thing that makes a security guarantee worth anything is the same thing that makes your money worth anything. You have to believe it's real, the person you're dealing with has to believe it's real, and there has to be an enforcement mechanism making it real. For a security guarantee to work, it would take a credible threat of enforcement to dissuade a potential aggressor, which in the case of Ukraine would probably have to be nothing less than permanent NATO presence and enough evident political will to go to war if Russia chooses to roll over that speed bump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I would argue that the US and the West are indeed standing behind and providing the security guarantee of the Budapest Memorandum. There was nothing formal in the agreement about just how the signatories would guarantee Ukraine's safety, so they were certainly not obligated to send any troops, but sending aid and arms certainly fits. Except they are doing it nine years too late.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 03:36
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Except they are doing it nine years too late. The US started working with Ukraine to upgrade its military shortly after Crimea was seized. It's why Trump had leverage on them to get them to make up dirt on Biden. They needed the American training and weapons. ETA:  Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294615/us-security-assistance-ukraine/ Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 03:41
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Except they are doing it nine years too late. Too late would be smuggling arms into the country for an insurgency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 03:43
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:I am inclined to agree, especially since I've said basically that exact thing in this very thread. The thing is, Russia didn't believe it was real, which is why they invaded. They had good reason not to. Four years of Trump trashing NATO (and blackmailing Ukraine), the haphazard withdrawal from Afghanistan, political turmoil from COVID, Germany's economy being hugely dependent on Russian gas, and the world ignoring their first foray into Crimea and the Donbass while shooting down a plane carrying a bunch of citizens of a NATO country were all pretty good predictors of a soft response.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 07:06
|
|
|
A quick reminder that Welt is the same as Bild, just for people with pretensions of being better than reading Bild. I don't understand why the Anglosphere exclusively reads the most garbage trash-tier publications it can find.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 08:27
|
|
|
tiaz posted:I remember this being reported on at the time so I guess the thing that Die Welt has an exclusive on is the actual text rather than mostly accurate recounting from people who saw it or were there? The Welt article that's been mangled on telegram is based on the recent FT article by Sam Charap and Sergey Radchenko. They've gotten access to draft documents from the Spring '22 negotiations and have published them. There's been a lot of debate about it on think tank twitter. If you're still using it, Radchenko is a Cold War historian who's a good follow. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 09:59
|
|
|
psydude posted:They had good reason not to. Four years of Trump trashing NATO (and blackmailing Ukraine), the haphazard withdrawal from Afghanistan, political turmoil from COVID, Germany's economy being hugely dependent on Russian gas, and the world ignoring their first foray into Crimea and the Donbass while shooting down a plane carrying a bunch of citizens of a NATO country were all pretty good predictors of a soft response. The little green men invasion of Crimea and the fake separatist republics in 2014, which wasn't under Trump, also does not happen if Russia thinks the Budapest memorandum is real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 10:56
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:The little green men invasion of Crimea and the fake separatist republics in 2014, which wasn't under Trump, also does not happen if Russia thinks the Budapest memorandum is real. Crimea and the Donbass regions heavily voted for Yanukovych, the guy deposed by the Maidan coup, in an election certified by outside observers as free and fair. Why would they want to stay part of an undemocratic country that disenfranchised their voices, threatened their identity as ethnic Russians, and threatened their economic livelihood through moving away from ties with geographically proximate Russia to the EU? Worth noting that six people, total, died during the secession of Crimea, including a dude who had a heart attack at a protest. And in retaliation Ukraine shut off fresh drinking water to Crimea, a sure sign of exactly how much the Ukrainian coup regime loved the people of Crimea. Also Crimea had a history of trying to assert itself as an autonomous zone with autonomous government until Ukraine forcibly shut that down, and the people who actually lived there remember that. The breakaway regions seceded because Ukrainian democracy had fallen. Maybe coups are a bad way to resolve political differences and if the country was truly gung ho about taking on IMF debt they could have had an election about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 13:37
|
|
|
International agreements are neither "real" nor "unreal", they have an always-varying amount of political will backing them, and hybrid warfare techniques like that are a good way of testing them since you can easily back off if there is a serious response. There wasn't, so there was no reason to back off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Crimea and the Donbass regions heavily voted for Yanukovych, the guy deposed by the Maidan coup, in an election certified by outside observers as free and fair. Why would they want to stay part of an undemocratic country that disenfranchised their voices, threatened their identity as ethnic Russians, and threatened their economic livelihood through moving away from ties with geographically proximate Russia to the EU? source ur quotes
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 13:40
|
|
|
The maidan revolution started on Feb 18, 2014 and Russia started what ended up being the occupation of Crimea on Feb 20 and Yanukovich was ousted on the 23rd. It’s almost like Russia and Yanukovich had been planning it for a while and with the suddenness of yanukovich being ousted they acted during the confusion. That the secession of Crimea was organic from within as a reaction to the change government is absurd given the timing. quote:The occupation began during Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity, which ousted pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. Russian special forces without insignia took control of Crimea's government buildings, surrounded Ukrainian military bases, and blockaded the peninsula. A pro-Russian government was installed and a referendum on Crimea's status was held under occupation. Crimea literally happened before Yanukovich was officially removed from power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 13:49
|
|
|
I didn't know Tucker Carlson had an SA account.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:08
|
|
|
Ukranian Coup Regime eh
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:27
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:The Welt article that's been mangled on telegram is based on the recent FT article by Sam Charap and Sergey Radchenko. They've gotten access to draft documents from the Spring '22 negotiations and have published them. There's been a lot of debate about it on think tank twitter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The maidan revolution started on Feb 18, 2014 and Russia started what ended up being the occupation of Crimea on Feb 20 and Yanukovich was ousted on the 23rd. Oh, nevermind then, everyone knows you have to let the coup finish before anyone is allowed to do anything else E: But seriously, they voted for Yanukovych in 2004 but the election was overturned. They voted of Yanukovych in 2010 and his opponent *tried* to have it overturned but I guess no one liked her enough. Maybe after a decade of continued attempts at disenfranchisement they were just expecting it? Also, again, Ukraine crushed Crimea's autonomous government in 1995, an event within living memory. Its not like there was a lot of faith or trust with the central government in Kyiv. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
That Works posted:Ukranian Coup Regime eh
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Crimea and the Donbass regions heavily voted for Yanukovych, the guy deposed by the Maidan coup, in an election certified by outside observers as free and fair. Why would they want to stay part of an undemocratic country that disenfranchised their voices, threatened their identity as ethnic Russians, and threatened their economic livelihood through moving away from ties with geographically proximate Russia to the EU? I’d ask all those voters how they still felt about this but they are mostly all dead in sunflower fields.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:42
|
|
|
Crab Dad posted:I’d ask all those voters how they still felt about this but they are mostly all dead in sunflower fields. Being shelled by militias for a decade will do that, yeah, very sad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:44
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Being shelled by militias for a decade will do that, yeah, very sad. Ohhhh so you are a serious believer. lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:46
|
|
|
I find it difficult to call an event a coup when the military and security services remain on the side of the regime and shoot the protestors. Calling it a coup or even a revolution obscures essential truth of events, which is that Yanukovich had a situation that was bad but manageable with the same group of political elites he'd been managing for a decade, and instead he lost and nerve and ran to Moscow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
Yanukovic was removed as president in a constitutional procedure after he fled the country to Russia. Afterwards new elections were held and Poroshenko was chosen as president. It's useless to argue with true believer tankies. It's especially draining when they're sealioning and  must be upheld. I will refrain from replying.To contribute to greater understanding, here is a very comprehensive video series on the current conflict, annexation of Crimea, war in Donbass, the Revolution of Dignity (Maidan), the Minsk accords, """NATO expansion""" and Russia's """Security Concerns"""", their abhorrent behavior in Moldova (Transnistria), Chechnya (x2), Georgia, etc. The works. Highly recommended viewing! quote:Part One: A history of Ukraine before the war, and how its incredibly Byzantine politics accidently sucked in its paranoid neighbor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJ024Zdzdk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_ZRBLFOXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OFyn_KSy8 (Probably need to open these in youtube)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Crimea and the Donbass regions heavily voted for Yanukovych, the guy deposed by the Maidan coup, in an election certified by outside observers as free and fair. Why would they want to stay part of an undemocratic country that disenfranchised their voices, threatened their identity as ethnic Russians, and threatened their economic livelihood through moving away from ties with geographically proximate Russia to the EU? I bet you said "Yes! Finally those nazis will be taken care of once and for all!" back in February 2022.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 16:08
|
|