I've mainly kept out of this thread but does anyone think that the EU inviting Ukraine and Moldova to join them is baiting the bear?

The EU should be inviting Russia to do some form of trade agreement with the EU in return for a deal over the Ukraine.

One more point

'There can be no compromise'.

Guy has zero understanding of the battlefield realities. Perhaps if Russia had people like our corny friend on their side Ukraine might have won....well, that and a sh1t load of air support and two times more male population.

It's all very well for a real physical coward to cheer on nationalists and the brave to go and die in wars they can't win.

But personally I'd stick every single one who cheered on this stupid war into those trenches.

Fifth columnists in this country have been its downfall since Orwell first noticed it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Dec 2023 6.50pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I can't be bothered with this....guy.

There are 400 pages of his nuttery on this thread and then there is the reality of what has transpired from it because essentially the kind of people directing Nato policy are like him.

I know what I would do about it....Hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive and the deal that Ukraine end up will now be far worse than what was on the table March 21.

Slow clap for nincompoops.....never mind eh, it wasn't you who lost relatives.

I have quite a strong suspicion on what's going to happen in Ukraine as well.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Dec 2023 9.25pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Anyone with common sense would know that if Europe's governments thought that they were in serious danger of attack from Russia then defence spending would have spiked to war economy levels 18 months ago.

Instead it's flat.

Two countries have defence spending at war economy levels....Ukraine and Russia....Well, Ukraine now have huge problems financially.

Nato is safe and always was safe.

Anyone but the gullible understands what's going on here but no, instead we have to listen to endless low common denominator stuff about, 'if we don't stop Putin'...blah blah blah....appeasement...blah, blah, blah.

Ok, you go and get your fatigues on appeaser. Biden has been pushing for Zelensky to start negotiations for some time now....the fact that he won't is why the Americans wanted elections so they could get someone who would....they know that Ukraine can't win an attritional war. Zelensky is hoping that Russia attack Nato to expand the war....that's his only chance.

All this talk of 'appeaser' but would the people who say it stand in a front line?....Nope, but hey, they will send someone else's kids in a jiffy. It's hard to take that talk seriously when it comes from someone who would never put themselves in danger.

I can't stand non nationalists who take advantage of a warrior's love of country. Instead of saving Ukraine's best men needed to rebuild the country they are now in the ground. What young man who could make a go of things is going to stay in Ukraine after the war now?

There's a complete unwillingness to accept reality here....Just very bad chess players.

Russia is out supplying military equipment nearly 3 to 1 on what Ukraine are getting. I said at the start that this was a disaster and that Russia had the upper hand here. It'll be another year even before the US gets to half the ammo production of Russia....To beat Russia we would need the full might and troops of Nato, I said that at the start but that was never going to happen for Ukraine.

These are the guys responsible for the west being in such a massive mess. They will talk about morality but talk is cheap.

Also, anyone who thinks Ukraine is getting a deal anything like what was on the table in March 21 he's living in cloud cuckoo land.

Thanks to terrible decisions Ukraine's best outcome went bye bye.

Even more important is what this war does geopolitically.....We are now in cold war and everything that comes with it....We happens to our energy costs when our contract with Norway runs out....There's going to be competition for that supply driving up the cost.

I just hope that Trump can repair some of these relations.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Dec 2023 2.13am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Going to pop on and answer this one and apologies about the length of the reply, but with topics like this, they often need to be unpacked in detail with lots of context.

For too long many people in the West have kind of held Russia with this odd sense of denialism and exceptionalism. I.e. We in the West should hold ourselves or at least our politicians to a certain level of accountability based on treaties, convention and international prescedent. But Russia, nah they are good they dont need to! To be VERY clear, we in the West are FAR from perfect, but what I find fascinating is how people can correctly point many times the West has pushed the boundaries, found itself on untested ground politically or just flat out broken the rules it helped to create, but when the same logic is applied to Russia (who also created those same rules), as if my magic those same rules just don't apply and nor should they ever have needed to! If you were to perhaps try and point this out, the response seems to be a) ignore the point b) ignore the point but bait you back with 'whataboutism' or c) just flat out make stuff up to try and soften what Russia has done.

If I may go into more detail about said rules, since 1945 and the founding of the UN Charter reinforced by the Helsinki Accords in 1975. The general consensus throughout the world has been that countries are soveriegn, borders (<-- take note of this) don't just change because one country just wants them to and might above all should not make right. At this point I need to stress, this wasn't a set of rules just created by the West to 'bash the commies' the USSR actually helped draft and signed both the UN charter and the Helsinki Accords it and it's successor state (Russia) would often hold the West to account when they saw violation of these rules. So one would have thought it had an equal share in accountability no?

Now, did this stop foriegn intervations and wars? Of course not. If anything it may have actually increased it. Korea (50-53) Vietnam (55-75) and the gulf war (91) all triggered police action wars because one side often wanted to just roll in the tanks like it was 1939 all over again and change a border.

Did countries still bomb and intervene in other countries internal affairs, prop up governments they like, depose those they thought were a threat to the region, interfere if trade and / or were trying to proliferate? Absolutely! Suez (56), Hungary (56), Czechoslovakia (6, Afganistan (80s), Libya (86 & 2011) are just a few examples. Are many of these wars / interventions highly questionable? Absolutely and we haven't even got into things like Afganistan (post 9/11) and Iraq (03) yet!

However here is the crucial difference which Russia is now downplaying, none of those conflicts involved a member of the UN security country just lopping off a countries terrority and keeping it because they felt like it. Thats what is happening now, this isn't just about trying to enforce your will or viewpoint on a country but deny the country it's right to exist full stop. This is the crux of the issue and where things start to get perverse. Ukraine, Moldova and Russia have had a very long history together - it's absolutely true. But they have always been three distinct peoples even during the height of the USSR. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was quite a bit of tension as to if Russian should be bound by what the Soviet's considered to be Ukrainian and Russian terrority (i'm going to leave Moldova out for the time being because they are super complicated but the general principal still applies). Given Russia was the official sucessor state to the USSR and it found itself neighbouring by now many independant nation states all armed with Soviet nuclear weapons and with different foreign policy aims this no doubt concerned Russia. Fair enough right?

Behold another treaty!

[Link]

Budapest essentially asked Russia to put it's territorial concerns on paper with regards to Ukraine and can be boiled down to.

"Now I (Ukraine) am going to give up many of my nuclear and offensive weaponary, so you can feel safer, can you please confirm you are happy with our borders?"

"Okay thanks, yes thats fine. I (russia) respect your sovereignty and territorial integrity I won't use force against you, thanks for giving your nukes over to me"

(3 years later) [Link]

"I (Ukraine) detect some cocern on your part, are you sure you don't have any concerns about the borders? Perhaps we could work together on certan things?"

"Yes I (Russia) am fine, we can be friends, force is not a way to settle our differences, we are two people with much in common".

All good right? What changes? Putin changes Russia thats what.

[Link]

So to him, Ukraine, Belarus and all the other former SSRs can be 'indepedant' as long as they do what Russia wants. Forget that none of the treaties Ukraine has signed bind Ukraine to this viewpoint.

Fast forward to 2010 and those Ukrainians have gone and elected a president (Yanukovych) who ran on a platform of economic modernisation and increasing trade links with the EU (this was literally in his manifesto). Oh he won! four years later he has drafted a treaty with the EU, ignore the fact he undid alot of reforms his predessors created during the Orange revolution (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-2012088, at least he is still negiotiating with the EU considering that was the platform he was elected on, love that!

Uh oh! Russia doesn't like this, this violates Putins rules about the legitimacy of Ukrainian indepedance that at this point only exist in his mind) Yanukovych backslides after Russia pressures them with economic sanctions. What his people and party protest him for breaking a key campaign promise then impeach him for not doing what he would say he would do in his manifesto (sign a treaty with the EU)? Thats not very democratic, must be a COUP! THE CIA! COUP! EU HOW COULD YOU!?

This is where it goes very wrong and where I actually finally answer your question.

Russia has had to work overtime to invent this narrative in which it gets to just flat out annex territory as a form as punishment. It does this by presenting itself as the victim. "I was baited, I was wronged etc". Doesnt matter that all the treaties it agreed to since 1945 dont support it's viewpoint, countries only get to be sovereign and make their own decisions when Russia feels it okay and above all - thats the rule! It's always been the rule!, I'm the victom!

[Link]

So to recap, the whole 'baiting the bear' thing is just line to infer that Russia is the victim of [insert western organisation / person in here], has been total rubbish for decades if not centuries and always be unless we want to go back to a total war type world where countries just play a real life version of risk, it always will be. For now most Westerners and their government see what Russia is doing and decide to push back, hence the support for Ukraine.

Thanks

I agree, it's pointless trying to argue on here as many people (being honest you can probably include me in this category too) have made their decision based on the evidence they (want to) see in front of them. What is striking on Western social media or even sites like this is no one can openly support Russia because what they have done is totally indefensible they no this, so the argyement switches to a kind of 'Ukraine bad' type discussion.

Respectfully, we kind of actually do. Ukraine's motivations for fighting this war are to continue existing as an independant nation state. Russia's motivations are actually easy to find because Putin is the kind of person who thinks he is smarter than he actually is, hence the literny of boring essays where he actually talks about how he views Russia's relationship with Ukraine.

[Link]

This is why i've always found it odd how the pro-russians on here will always tell me what Putin's motivations are or claim ignorance even what presented with speeches or articles written by Putin explaining what his motivations are.

I think this is a very astute comment. After the fall of the USSR Russia actually tried to run it's country as an actual democracy. The issue is Russia (even the Russian federation) is not a natural creation. It's terrority and borders stems from centuries of colonialism and autocray. The only thing which has kep the darned country together has been autocracy, demographic manipulation and borderline genocide. The reason we in the West don't realise this because the terroritory Russia colonised is directly bordered to the the beginnings of Russia (Muscovy). When Yeltsin essentially did silly things like allow for free press, self determination, actually upholding the USSRs commitment to a rules based order and even strengthening it, his country collapsed into anarchy and Russian's never really forgave him for it. Hence the whole "doesn count" line when ever anyone points out why Russia's invasion is so wrong.

Again this is really on the money. The issue is as i've pointed out. Russia isn't willing to actually negiotiate in good faith. A lasting peace needs concessions by both sides. Ask the pro-russian lot on here what Russia should concede and you get either silence or the promise that Russia 'wont take MOAR territory'. As pointed out, even how hopeless Russia has been on the battlefield this gives Kyiv no reason to negiotiate. Russia knows it's being uncooperative so it projects with statements like "Ukraine is not serious!"

[Link]

This is because it needs it's supports to keep up a narrative that it is Ukraine that must conceed 100% and Russia not at all.

Secondly, even if we could negiotiate with Putin, none of the Pro-Russians have found a way to actually enforce a treaty given Putin's previous for violating them. The only replies i've gotten are for a re-run of Budapest (94) violated by Russia or for a 'DMZ' to be put in place which hilariously we had from 2014-2022 and also... did not stop Russia.

I genuinely think Ukraines door is open to negiotiation, but demands such as "Surrender please" or "let us run your country" don't really seem overly appealing.