Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
why does that need clarification? why are you constantly putting words in my mouth? bruv, I will readily admit I do not know the exact amenable terms for any side in this conflict. you can always drill down deeper and deeper and find some small issue that I cant answer.
but you dont know any more than me.
Amenable to Putin. If Ukraine had accepted Putin's ultimatum in April 22 then Putin would not have invaded again?
I already said I dont think so. but how should I know? apparently you do know for certain so why are we even here. you think some counterfactual that requires 86 assumptions is nearly 0%. I think its not close to 0%.
I do know that your track record in this conflict with predictions is pretty poor.
I know a lot more than you.
The reason I'm asking for clarification is because you are so evasive. For example: you were just saying that if Ukraine signed the April ultimatum then you don't think that Russia would have invaded again, and now you've changed that to "amenable terms". Which is it? "Amenable terms" to Putin could mean a lot more than the April ultimatum.
Be precise!
I know a lot more than you.
The reason I'm asking for clarification is because you are so evasive. For example: you were just saying that if Ukraine signed the April ultimatum then you don't think that Russia would have invaded again, and now you've changed that to "amenable terms". Which is it? "Amenable terms" to Putin could mean a lot more than the April ultimatum.
Be precise!
if you want precision then quote the posts and the context.
if Putin signed something then I am going to assume that the terms are amenable to him.
and if you want precision then you should not say "April ultimatum" bc thats quite a stretch. who reported those terms? (WSJ right) and where did they get it from? (I cant remember tbh). did anyone else confirm these terms to the WSJ? from Russia or Ukraine or 3rd parties?
so for precision sake you should say "the terms leaked to the WSJ (?) by xxx and confirmed by yyy and zzz and jjj".
Yes. The Ukrainian involved in the peace deal who you posted in the previous thread confirmed it.
For precision sake you can read the article to find out where they got it:
While the broad outlines of the ultimately unsuccessful peace negotiations have been disclosed, the full 17-page document, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal and others familiar with the negotiations, hasn’t been made public.
The document, dated April 15, 2022, sketches out how negotiators on both sides sought to end the fighting by agreeing to turn Ukraine into a “permanently neutral state that doesn’t participate in military blocs,” bar the country from rebuilding its military with Western support and leave Crimea under de facto Russian control.
for precision sake, I am not certain that such an ultimatum was proposed. we are no well into counterfactuals within counterfactuals.
I am afraid I cannot give you the precision you are looking for without you providing more precise premises.
The guy who tried to take over Ukraine's government to make it a puppet state, then tried that again when he originally failed, then tried to create an uprising so he could take over Ukraine, then sent in troops to kick off an uprising when that failed, then invaded, then invaded again... doesn't want to conquer Ukraine and would be happy with only limiting their military to a police force.
He has his authorities and propaganda constantly promote destroying and conquering Ukraine:
https://www.justsecurity.org/81789/russi...
He even has the ex-president of Russia making fantasy maps showing Russia controlling the vast majority of Ukraine:
He personally wrote a manifesto about how Ukrainians aren't a people, aren't a state, calls them "Little Russia", and are part of Russia. He also straight up says he wants to unite Ukraine with Russia:
When given a softball question from Tucker asking for peace, said that if USA stopped sending aid he would be done in a few weeks and then the war would be over. Yet he doesn't want to conquer Ukraine because it's too costly? Yet he's still attempting just that despite the costs and poor results. He just wants to keep their military weak and give himself veto power on them receiving aid if they're invaded again because... who knows? Having accomplished none of his war aims, very little of his goal of conquering Ukraine, and having ensured that Ukraine would not have much of a military, thereby drastically cutting the costs of his future invasion, he would be satisfied and not attack again.
Yeah that's hopium. There's near 0 chance that Putin follows through with that agreement, much like he betrayed the Budapest Memorandum, Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, Istanbul Summit, multiple treaties with Georgia, multiple Minsk agreements, Syrian treaties, Chechen treaties etc.
The only cease fire Ukraine should take is joining NATO but a very large demilitarized line with no NATO troops and let Russia keep Crimea and maybe a tiny bit of **** gained in this invasion.
Amenable to Putin. If Ukraine had accepted Putin's ultimatum in April 22 then Putin would not have invaded again?
While I normally don't agree with Victor if Russia got everything the wanted I don't think Putin invades is the next decade or 2 assuming he was negotiating for what he wanted not what he thought he could get.
He would invade again as soon as invading benefitted him. Thinking anything is else incredibly naive.
isnt that what every country does? the point is to make a deal where there isnt enough benefit.
No, that's not what any country does. But if you believe that then signing that deal would be absolutely horrible.
While I normally don't agree with Victor if Russia got everything the wanted I don't think Putin invades is the next decade or 2 assuming he was negotiating for what he wanted not what he thought he could get.
He's an aggressive dictator. He always wants more. Like a shark, if he stops swimming and moving water past his gills, he suffocates. (You may read that 'most sharks' don't need to keep moving, and can breathe using their cheek muscles while lying stationary on the seabed, but this mainly applies to small species that you wouldn't necessarily recognise as sharks. The big sharks, the ones we all know, mostly swim or die.)
Anyway, the Pope's made a bloody fool of himself, like his ignoble predecessor Pius XII who went easy on Hitler, declined to excommunicate Nazis and oversaw the Vatican programme to help SS war criminals resettle under false identities in South America after the war.
If you believe that then signing a treaty that dismantled your military and places your future in the hands of someone who is currently invading you is extremely dumb. That treaty required complete faith in Putin. Trusting Putin is dumb.
If you believe that then signing a treaty that dismantled your military and places your future in the hands of someone who is currently invading you is extremely dumb. That treaty required complete faith in Putin. Trusting Putin is dumb.
I think signing an absurd treaty giving Putin everything buys a sold 10 years. That is not what I think Ukraine should do. They should give up some land and some area where no troops can be for a NATO membership which is probably the only way to keep Putin from changing his mind or deciding more war is best in 5 years
Ukraine likely agrees with you which is why they want to win this war and continue fighting. 10 years is probably optimistic though.
Ukraine conceding anything only opens the door for more concessions.
Honestly Ukraine says they will refuse to give up land and Russian refuses NATO so if both sides hate the deal it is probably a good one to end this ****.
Russia hates the position they are in but considering the position they are in they would love that peace treaty.
Very high chance they'd renege on any peace deal when it suited them. Putin can't be trusted.
Yeah I reckon that's true, though it pains me to say it.
