How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kevinkin]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

absorb these levels and still force generate combat power.

Rhetorical questions re: loses: 

Indefinitely or long enough to defeat Russia now to avoid further Ukrainian losses at the rate he cites? Is Arestovych lying? Do Ukrainian losses matter and if they do when will they take hold?

[chuckdyke]

Ukraine losses matters but their morale doesn't crack. If you chop wood woodchips are the consequence. Salute the brave soldiers who fight on our behalf. Yes they deserve the best equipment the west can possibly send them. Keep the Russians on the run all the way across the border. 

[RandomCommenter]

22 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well I guess the same way we keep order right now.  We try and negotiate, entice and keep people within exiting states; however, if they employ a free and fair democratic process to derive a mandate from the people to leave that state, then a negotiation begins for that separation.  Plenty of history and precedent on this, particularly after the break up of the USSR; however, we also have them in the west.

Scotland is still debating the issue and if they vote to leave, does anyone think England will force them to stay against their will?  In my own country we came within millimeters of Quebec separation and it would have been an ugly divorce but no one was even discussing the use of force to hold the nation together.

I am not sure that the threshold is: Greenland did a soft-pull away back in 2008 and their population is about 56k: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence.  Donbass region had about 6 million people in it.  

If we mean what we stand for then this isn't about what we want, it is about what the populations within those regions want - we cannot go back-sies on democracy because we don't like the result. 

International recognition of Ukrainian borders pre-2014 is already in place, we are not talking about that issue until Ukraine decides one way or the other.  I too agree Ukraine should be supported in re-gaining its former frontiers, I am just not sure it will.  I also think that the re-integration of those occupied regions is also very important part of the process should Ukraine regain them, and should include free and fair elections/referendums on the issue, if the people there so decide it.

I guess my question back to you the other way: where do we draw the line in trying to keep people in a nation structure they do not want to be within?  At what point does their freedom not count? The easy answer is "well they can leave" but how is that any different from a slippery form of forced deportation?  Which is exactly what we are seeing Russia do.

If we mean what we stand for then this isn't about what we want, it is about what the populations within those regions want - we cannot go back-sies on democracy because we don't like the result. 

And now we get down to it. What is democracy? What is a "region" with a right of secession? What is a "population"? What is the franchise? We get into gerrymandering discussions here.

To take the case of Northern Ireland. What gave the six counties the right to secede from the rest of Ireland? (in reality it was military power through the gun running to Larne and the British Army mutiny in the Curragh). But what is the franchise? Whole of UK (which would have lost)? Whole of Ireland (which would have lost)? Whole of Ulster (which would have lost)? On a county by county basis (which would have shown four counties in favor of secession)? So what we ended up with was four Protestant counties and two subject Catholic counties making a six county statelet which was (just about) large enough to be viable and with a (then) inbuilt 66/33 Protestant majority. i.e. it was an entirely illegitimate project.

So when we move to Ukraine. What was the mandate behind Donetsk or Luhansk having any legitimacy as a separatist region? There is none. The majority of the population in both oblasts wanted to stay in Ukraine. There was no problem until Russia sent it in agents provocateurs to stir up trouble because they could not accept being defeated in the Maidan. So I do not see that Donetsk, Luhansk or Crimea have any legitimate right to secede. And when you add to the fact that the Russians have engaged in ethnic cleansing to clear out the Tartars and plant Russians in Ukraine to generate an artificial majority, the fact that the pro Ukrainian parts of the population fled from Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea how do we say we can have a fair poll today. Like take Crimea, do Russian settlers who moved in get a vote because they live there now? And the family who's house they live in who are refugees in Kiev don't get a vote?

No.

This is not a question of pseudo independence referenda (and why would Ukraine subject to this if Russia is not going to allow Buriyta and Chechnya and other regions secede). Yes, if people in Donbas want to have Russian language rights and the right to send members of Parliament to Kiev they should (after a period of weeding out traitors who should lose their Ukrainian citizenship).

 

You have some places like Scotland for example which entered a voluntary union with England in 1707 or whatever and therefore can have a natural justice right to undo that (it is still a separate country with a separate legal system). Greenland is hundreds of miles from Denmark. And even there whether they have a right to secede or not is an open question. But what gives the Donbas the right to secede from Ukraine? To my mind, nothing. And sorry, regardless what the current quisling "government" there says or the remains of the population that currently inhabit that place.

 

Have they a right to citizenship in Ukraine or to leave peacefully to Russia? Yes. Have they the right to live in peace? Absolutely. The right to raise their kids in Russian language schools? 100%. Have they the right to declare themselves independent of Ukraine and ask Russia for "protection"? Hell no.

[NamEndedAllen]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

the entire post-conflict thing is something to unpack, but we need to get there first.

 

Indeed! Apart from the Capt’s range of more nuanced post war scenarios and the more aggressive varied positions here,  the battlefield has a big vote. Right now, it looks as if Ukraine is making concerted efforts to be holding a big time Royal straight flush at the negotiation table. They and/or Russia and their mutual interlocutors may already be quietly speaking about the shape and size of that table. But won’t the scale and impact of Ukraine’s battlefield victories be the loudest voice? (assuming that the near unanimous opinion here that Russia will not be making a Hail Mary game-ending drive).

What we don’t know is how and when Ukraine’s counter-offensives will culminate. Until then our discussions here are largely academic, and need not boil over. Far too much has already been spilled on the battlefield. My opinion, worth less than you paid for it is that Ukraine has the deciding vote on when open negotiations can start, although certainly not without advice from the Allies. IIRC, fighting continued during drawn out negotiations between North Vietnam and the USA. So both may be carried out in parallel. The currently winning side needn’t call a cease fire until it is good and ready. Does Ukraine definitely see 2014 “borders” as that time? Don’t know.

if settlements were made only by the pure light of reason, perhaps the abstractions of fully rational outcomes would always be the result. Then the Capt’s painstakingly measured best outcome and future projections might somehow come about - AND be stable. Bitterly fought WWI did not end that way. But an unconditional WWII type surrender by Russia is not in the cards, even if they withdrew their various forces. Is there a plausible version though? Collapse appears to be the only Walk Off scenario. And most here see that as either a black hole of misery and nukes, or an even worse replacement than Putin at the helm. Again the Capt has an off-ramp vision of a terrible dictator of a rather broken state, but a sorta kinda tame enough one that we could “ manage” and do business with. Maybe that’s the best we could *reasonably* hope for. Stable? Well, how long did Putin take before beginning to subvert, invade and reduce Russia’s neighboring countries?

 

[Butschi]

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Lethaface has it correct in his post above, summarized as:

Correct. Since the start of this thread we've had a frank discussion about the realities of this war (as best we can) and plenty of guesswork as to what might come next.  I'll speak for myself and only myself, though what I'm saying might apply to others.  I'm not going to put words in other people's mouths, but if you think what I'm about to say applies to others, please apply it.

I have consistently predicted bad things for Russia and good things for Ukraine, the world, and oddly enough even Russians in the future (rehabilitation is a long road, but they have to start to get there).  The war has largely tracked as predicted, generally and often very specifically.  I think I've earned some street cred here for this track record.

Yet as soon as I look forward and say "OK, we're at a junction and what lies down some of the road options is really scary, so let's evaluate them" it's dismissed as some sort of back peddling, giving into Russian pressure, and any number of fairly reactionary nonsense.  As if I've suddenly lost my confidence in everything I've been so confident about over the past 6 months.  I see attacking the messenger more than the message in quite a few posts made over the past few pages.

Does anybody see this as problematic?  I for sure do.  I don't think some sort of apology is in order for such treatment, but I think some introspection by some people about how they reacted is appropriate.

Again, I am just speaking for myself.  Apply to others as you feel appropriate.

Steve

 

I've been trying to keep up for half the day but I'm still 10 pages behind... So, no idea wether the discussion has already moved on.

I, too, had the impression that generally people get attacked rather quickly here for voicing caution or not chiming in with Ukraine for total victory. Well, this whole war is a very emotional topic, we all have a hard time discussing purely in a rational way.

So, here's my subjective and rational 2 ct. I'm all for supporting Ukraine in defeating Russia, so the Ukrainians can live their lives they way they want. I couldn't care less lines on maps, though. So, if a prolonged war is about saving Ukrainians from suffering under Russian occupation, I'm fine with that. If it is about about making lines on the map look like 2014 - not for my money.

When I say, I'm for supporting Ukraine, I say that because I can afford it. My girlfriend told me yesterday that she did the calculation and probably her low wage won't be enough to pay the bills this year. She takes some pride in being able to fend for herself despite a lot of hardship she had to go through in her life. It's not her fault that Russia attacked Ukraine, it's not even her fault she has gas heating - she was lucky to get the flat she has. Why do I tell that story? Because of course there is a cost/gain calculation here, even if it's about doing The Right Thing (tm). Obviously hurt pride weighs less than suffering from being attacked or from brutal occupation. But when we talk about retaking lost territory for the sake of restoring border lines... righteous as it may be, in what way is that really different from hurt pride... ? Does the gain outweigh the costs? At some point I for one can't say it does with any real conviction.

Go ahead and stone me now, here take a bag of pebbles.

[sburke]

Voices: Planned walkouts from Russia’s speech and the elephant in the room: Inside the UN General Assembly (msn.com)

Quote

 

Instead of delivering his address during the week, as is standard, Lavrov will speak on Saturday. He will most likely blame this rescheduling on the administrative overhead of the US embassy in Moscow for not issuing his visa in a timely manner. The more likely explanation for his unusual timing is that it will help minimize the public spectacle of numerous members of the General Assembly hall walking out when he comes to the dais to speak.

Inside the UN, several First Secretaries are aggrieved at Russia. They are forced to attend the speech by virtue of their jobs — or at least are required to be present at the beginning of it — but they plan to walk out the moment Lavrov starts talking. And the charge d’affaires and ambassadors who would ordinarily sit behind their nameplates are expected to be absent, too, nursing their hangovers while keeping an eye on UNTV from the comfort of their Upper East Side townhouses. Such ambassadors have commented that the speech is expected to be a car crash.

 

 

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

Go ahead and stone me now, here take a bag of pebbles.

 

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

"Faith, belief" - you guys toss these around like they are hard truths and it is starting to irritate.  Second is the black and white calculus that anyone does not align with as "defeatists etc".

We are not investing billions, in the middle of post-pandemic recession, and risking a slow roll towards nuclear Armageddon because we have "faith and hope" that anyone will "do the right thing" - a concept we cannot even agree on internally.

We are doing it because of what we know.  We know Russia cannot win this war and we know Ukraine cannot lose the peace.  A significant portion of the populations of the west don't have faith in their own governments, let alone one 7-time zones away.

I honestly have watched the Ukrainian government steer a brilliant narrative, a few missteps but rock solid.  But Reconstruction/Post Conflict is like wedding - everyone loses their freaking minds!

You want to propose a non-negotiable push to the pre-2014 borders, then you need to answer the question of how to deal with those regions who have been outside of Ukraine for 8 years, because that post-game show directly impacts what we know.   

 

Maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard for a while if you are increasingly irritated with people that disagree with your opinion?

[The_Capt]

26 minutes ago, RandomCommenter said:

The majority of the population in both oblasts wanted to stay in Ukraine. There was no problem until Russia sent it in agents provocateurs to stir up trouble because they could not accept being defeated in the Maidan. So I do not see that Donetsk, Luhansk or Crimea have any legitimate right to secede.

“Prior to the Revolution of Dignity, the politics of the region were dominated by the pro-Russian Party of Regions, which gained about 50% of Donbas votes in the 2008 Ukrainian parliamentary election. Prominent members of that party, such as former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, were from the Donbas.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donbas

I have zero doubt there was Russian influence, however, I would say the issue is far from clear.  You and I do not need to see a “legitimate right” for these regions to explore separation - it is implied within the framework of a modern free democracy.  Or are we selling something else?

In the end this is not a debate about whether or not these regions have the ‘right’ or not, it is about their freedom to chose to do so.  If you are saying that they are not entitled to this because…well why are you saying they do not have that right?  What is a “legitimate right” then?  And who gets to determine that?  If the majority of people in this region after reintegration want to explore separation are you proposing a prison state where that option is removed?  The only thing I have heard is that is may not be allowed in the Ukrainian constitution; but that is a slippery slope post-conflict.

In fact if they are not afforded that right, is not Ukraine risking another civil conflict in the future?
 

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard for a while if you are increasingly irritated with people that disagree with your opinion?

Dude, read some posts further down, we settled this already.  Hours ago, no need to resurrect.

[The_Capt]

42 minutes ago, RandomCommenter said:

Like take Crimea, do Russian settlers who moved in get a vote because they live there now? And the family who's house they live in who are refugees in Kiev don't get a vote?

Sorry missed this one, no. Ukrainian citizens get the vote under Ukrainian law.  If a Russians immigrate to Ukraine become citizens then, yes they should be afforded those rights.

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Sorry missed this one, no. Ukrainian citizens get the vote under Ukrainian law.  If a Russians immigrate to Ukraine become citizens then, yes they should be afforded those rights.

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

 If a Russians immigrate to Ukraine become citizens then, yes they should be afforded those rights.

Usually when you apply for citizenship, you're expected to have mastered the language too. In Australia this has been watered down considerably. Immigrants have the same rights but if they choose not to become naturalized they can't vote. putin seems to have an issue with that. He sees Ukrainian as a Russian dialect. 

Edited September 22, 2022 by chuckdyke

[sburke]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

“Prior to the Revolution of Dignity, the politics of the region were dominated by the pro-Russian Party of Regions, which gained about 50% of Donbas votes in the 2008 Ukrainian parliamentary election. Prominent members of that party, such as former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, were from the Donbas.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donbas

I have zero doubt there was Russian influence, however, I would say the issue is far from clear.  You and I do not need to see a “legitimate right” for these regions to explore separation - it is implied within the framework of a modern free democracy.  Or are we selling something else?

In the end this is not a debate about whether or not these regions have the ‘right’ or not, it is about their freedom to chose to do so.  If you are saying that they are not entitled to this because…well why are you saying they do not have that right?  What is a “legitimate right” then?  And who gets to determine that?  If the majority of people in this region after reintegration want to explore separation are you proposing a prison state where that option is removed?  The only thing I have heard is that is may not be allowed in the Ukrainian constitution; but that is a slippery slope post-conflict.

In fact if they are not afforded that right, is not Ukraine risking another civil conflict in the future?
 

well, if you want to start getting into the weeds, how far does this right go?  I want to secede from the US.  Not my state, not my county.. just me.  The Free state of sburke.  If you'd like to apply for a passport, just send me the $50 fee plus some handling charges etc.  You'll be met at the entrance to my drive by border control.  We'll need at least several weeks to process your visa (mostly so we can tidy up).

Seriously though a state has a right to establish some level of territorial integrity.  If those folks want to live under a Russian gov't they are free to do so. The border is just over there. That isn't an option in prison.  Prior to 2014 there was no discussion about secession as far as I know.  This is entirely instigated by Russia and I believe Steve has previously posted on some of the key players and machinations to seize power there after Maidan.  There was no vote, there was simply an armed seizure of power.  Remember those little green men?

While I do agree that Ukraine needs to decide what it feels is worth fighting for and what isn't, I don't think there is any legitimacy to a separation vote other than to legitimize Russian aggression.

[FancyCat]

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

“Prior to the Revolution of Dignity, the politics of the region were dominated by the pro-Russian Party of Regions, which gained about 50% of Donbas votes in the 2008 Ukrainian parliamentary election. Prominent members of that party, such as former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, were from the Donbas.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donbas

I have zero doubt there was Russian influence, however, I would say the issue is far from clear.  You and I do not need to see a “legitimate right” for these regions to explore separation - it is implied within the framework of a modern free democracy.  Or are we selling something else?

In the end this is not a debate about whether or not these regions have the ‘right’ or not, it is about their freedom to chose to do so.  If you are saying that they are not entitled to this because…well why are you saying they do not have that right?  What is a “legitimate right” then?  And who gets to determine that?  If the majority of people in this region after reintegration want to explore separation are you proposing a prison state where that option is removed?  The only thing I have heard is that is may not be allowed in the Ukrainian constitution; but that is a slippery slope post-conflict.

In fact if they are not afforded that right, is not Ukraine risking another civil conflict in the future?
 

The "separatists" were about to be defeated in 2014, at which point Russia decided to throw off the excuse of the "little green men" and just sent in regular Russian forces to reinforce and save the separatists and freeze the conflict. Igor Girkin is a FSB agent and Minister of Defense for the DPR! far from clear? I'm not sure what more clearness there could be that the separatists were made up of significant numbers of Russian military and security personnel, not before even getting into the actual deployment of Russian forces to keep the border open and separatist supply routes intact preventing the whole thing from ending in 2014. 

[kevinkin]

58 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Ukraine losses matters but their morale doesn't crack.

But when will they matter to a point that they affect Ukraine's offensive capabilities to take and hold ground? There is a finite timeframe that must be factored into planning unless Russia just stops fighting at some point. I don't know the date so ask the question. Would NATO fill in manpower gaps if the war continues and Ukraine needs help finishing the enemy off? Gun to my head - no. 

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Yes they deserve the best equipment the west can possibly send them.

Exactly. Bring the fight to the occupiers now while they are in disarray. Don't leave anything to chance. "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - Patton.

But for WMD, world leaders have to tell us why the delay. Even with western support and all the bells and whistles, there is some degree of urgency in winning this war. 

[dan/california]

21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Sorry missed this one, no. Ukrainian citizens get the vote under Ukrainian law.  If a Russians immigrate to Ukraine become citizens then, yes they should be afforded those rights.

It might have made perfect sense to have had a nice, vaguely fair, actually counted election in 2014 or 2015 under U.N. auspices. Although there is still a fascinating question about whether that should have been the whole oblast or just the pieces the separatist held at that time. The problem with a vote in the presumed post conflict environment is that you are simply replacing might makes right over who draws the lines on the map with might makes right over who draws up the voter roles. And there would be a LOT to fight about.

Has there been a census in the Donbas in the last twenty years that anybody believes?  Were those records kept in Kyiv or the Republics? Even if there were minimally decent records would whatever side they disadvantaged accept them? Places with 1000th the problems of the Donbas are fighting over all these things. I mean the Russians playing fair on any aspect of this is a joke. For starters they will do any and every kind of whatever to claim that their imported population are actually long term residents. By any and everything I mean killing whole villages and giving the imported people passports in their names, not joking. See the post about prisoners above if you don't believe me. Maybe if they were in a good mood they just ship the original population to Siberia and proceed with the faking. If someone in took a Rusian passport are they disqualified form voting? Does anyone who lived there in 2014 have the right to vote? Do they have to prove they are moving back? How? And too whom? So all this comes back rather quickly to who is holding the guns in the area doing the voting. Who is deciding who gets to vote? It might be easier to just argue about the lines on the map, and make sure Ukraine keeps its promises of fair treatment and full citizenship for the people on their side of it. The people on the Russian side of the line are just bleeped.

I will reiterate my opinion that Ukraine needs the Donbas all the way in, or all the out. A last and final decision that this side of wherever the line lands is Russia, and that side is Ukraine. Maintaining some sort of "Independent Republics" as playground for the Russian security services is the worst possible outcome. Which is not to say that it couldn't be the outcome, that is why they hold the war, but the current Russian annexation efforts would seem to lean against it, at least.

Heck, just the argument over the exact wording of any referendum could take forever, and who gets to decide that? Are we answering that question in Donbas trenches? Or Swiss hotels? I like the hotel option myself. 

As always Capt I value your opinion deeply.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, sburke said:

well, if you want to start getting into the weeds, how far does this right go?  I want to secede from the US.  Not my state, not my county.. just me.  The Free state of sburke.  If you'd like to apply for a passport, just send me the $50 fee plus some handling charges etc.  You'll be met at the entrance to my drive by border control.  We'll need at least several weeks to process your visa (mostly so we can tidy up).

Seriously though a state has a right to establish some level of territorial integrity.  If those folks want to live under a Russian gov't they are free to do so. The border is just over there. That isn't an option in prison.  Prior to 2014 there was no discussion about secession as far as I know.  This is entirely instigated by Russia and I believe Steve has previously posted on some of the key players and machinations to seize power there after Maidan.  There was no vote, there was simply an armed seizure of power.  Remember those little green men?

While I do agree that Ukraine needs to decide what it feels is worth fighting for and what isn't, I don't think there is any legitimacy to a separation vote other than to legitimize Russian aggression.

Interestingly I have been wondering the same thing - what is the threshold?  Not a single household (it has been tried).  Is is a county, a township, I don't think so, a province or region seems to be on the table.

I do think a state has a right to establish territorial integrity; however, this is also contract between the people who live within it.  At some point, not entirely sure where, if they people wish it, that contract may need to be renegotiated.  I think removing that freedom is extremely dangerous, unless of course it is agreed to beforehand.

My concern here is that we are playing fast and lose with peoples rights and freedoms, largely because we might not like the answer.  Democracy says that power is derived from a mandate from the people - the only international bounds on that which I know of are laws with respect to human rights (and even here we play a little loose).  A state is free to determine how it is governed.  We even have an index for democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index).

So if you and others are saying Donbas or Crimea does not have a right to explore the question - of course when it can be established as free and fair - then who does and why?

According to @RandomCommenter Scotland does as it was an independent nation who joined a union and retained the right to leave - so it has to do with entry into the union?  What about places like Quebec, who were conquered and then as our democracy evolved so did their rights to separate? What about indigenous peoples, like Greenland?

Regardless, it may not even come to this; however, it is an issue worth considering, I do not think we can simply sweep it under the carpet.   

[sburke]

 

Defiant Russia Shows Up Late to UN, Walks Out Early (msn.com)

Quote

 

The UN Security Council gave Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov an icy reception when he went before it to defend his nation’s invasion of Ukraine. The veteran diplomat made sure he didn’t stick around to hear the criticism.

In a show of defiance toward Western condemnation, Lavrov arrived well after the council opened a special meeting to discuss the Ukraine conflict on Thursday. He gave his speech -- accusing the West of forcing Russia to invade to protect itself -- and then walked out.

 

 

[sburke]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Interestingly I have been wondering the same thing - what is the threshold?  Not a single household (it has been tried).  Is is a county, a township, I don't think so, a province or region seems to be on the table.

So you won't be applying for that passport?  there is a $25 cancellation fee... payable in beer.

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

The "separatists" were about to be defeated in 2014, at which point Russia decided to throw off the excuse of the "little green men" and just sent in regular Russian forces to reinforce and save the separatists and freeze the conflict. Igor Girkin is a FSB agent and Minister of Defense for the DPR! far from clear? I'm not sure what more clearness there could be that the separatists were made up of significant numbers of Russian military and security personnel, not before even getting into the actual deployment of Russian forces to keep the border open and separatist supply routes intact preventing the whole thing from ending in 2014. 

Ah, well now this is a different story.  This is Russia and separatist abandoning democratic process and turning to violence because they did not like the answer...not cool.

My point on "clear" is that there it was unclear as to the level of separatist sentiment in the region, I think you answered that; clearly a section of the population within the Donbass region are not "all in" with the Ukrainian union.  I suspect we would find the same in Crimea.

So what does Ukraine do when it re-takes these regions, assuming Russia fall all the way back and is no longer a real factor?

We have been debating legitimacy a lot and frankly I do not know if the cause of the separatist was or is legitimate, I am not even sure we on the outside have the right to judge - how they went about trying to gain freedom, or Russian involvement, was clearly not legitimate.

I am very concerned about any suggestion that the peoples of the Donbass or Crimea, who were separatists or even served in the LNR/DNR forces are somehow not entitled to democratic rights and freedoms as any Ukrainian citizens, not that I think that is what most of us are suggesting.  I think there are a lot of grey areas here, and we should not dismiss a peoples free choice lightly - even the ones we really do not like.

I am very concerned about side-stepping or sweeping the issue aside when we discuss end-states for this war.

I have to say this entire discussion has gotten me really thinking about post-conflict and the challenges of nation building, which are muscles I have not used in some time.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

So you won't be applying for that passport?  there is a $25 cancellation fee... payable in beer.

Hey now, I didn't say that - the free state of sburke is starting to look pretty good right now.

[Huba]

Some new pictures from the infamous Bilohorivka crossing:

 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Indeed! Apart from the Capt’s range of more nuanced post war scenarios and the more aggressive varied positions here,  the battlefield has a big vote. Right now, it looks as if Ukraine is making concerted efforts to be holding a big time Royal straight flush at the negotiation table. They and/or Russia and their mutual interlocutors may already be quietly speaking about the shape and size of that table. But won’t the scale and impact of Ukraine’s battlefield victories be the loudest voice? (assuming that the near unanimous opinion here that Russia will not be making a Hail Mary game-ending drive).

What we don’t know is how and when Ukraine’s counter-offensives will culminate. Until then our discussions here are largely academic, and need not boil over. Far too much has already been spilled on the battlefield. My opinion, worth less than you paid for it is that Ukraine has the deciding vote on when open negotiations can start, although certainly not without advice from the Allies. IIRC, fighting continued during drawn out negotiations between North Vietnam and the USA. So both may be carried out in parallel. The currently winning side needn’t call a cease fire until it is good and ready. Does Ukraine definitely see 2014 “borders” as that time? Don’t know.

if settlements were made only by the pure light of reason, perhaps the abstractions of fully rational outcomes would always be the result. Then the Capt’s painstakingly measured best outcome and future projections might somehow come about - AND be stable. Bitterly fought WWI did not end that way. But an unconditional WWII type surrender by Russia is not in the cards, even if they withdrew their various forces. Is there a plausible version though? Collapse appears to be the only Walk Off scenario. And most here see that as either a black hole of misery and nukes, or an even worse replacement than Putin at the helm. Again the Capt has an off-ramp vision of a terrible dictator of a rather broken state, but a sorta kinda tame enough one that we could “ manage” and do business with. Maybe that’s the best we could *reasonably* hope for. Stable? Well, how long did Putin take before beginning to subvert, invade and reduce Russia’s neighboring countries?

 

nicely said.

[sburke]

26 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am very concerned about any suggestion that the peoples of the Donbass or Crimea, who were separatists or even served in the LNR/DNR forces are somehow not entitled to democratic rights and freedoms as any Ukrainian citizens

This one I am gonna have to say no way on.  Armed insurrection against their own government eliminates their right to expect the same freedoms enjoyed by other Ukrainian citizens.  They have crossed the line to sedition and criminal acts. How the Ukrainian gov't deals with this is their decision but I don't see an argument that these folks can just lay down their arms and immediately have all the same rights as the people who paid such an awful price for this war.