How many Russians are Putin willing to sacrifice in Ukraine

@val70 far from it would be nice if putin realised he was fighting a war he can never realistically win and withdraw all his troops occupying ukraine . i know there is no reality of that ever happening as putin has too much too lose in his own country and his standing as a some sort of hard man on the world stage

@smiler2012 I think it's going to take someone else in the Kremlin to make that realization and then serve Putin one of those famous cups of radioactive tea.

@val70 @ElwoodBlues Ukraine is just a proxy war between the US and Russia and Europe is paying the price.

@revenant says [quote]Ukraine is just a proxy war[/quote] DEAD WRONG!

You, and Putin, seem to be forgetting a three-way treaty known as the [i]1994 Budapest Memorandum.[/i]

Essentially, Ukraine agreed to give up all its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for safety from a U.S. or Russian invasion. Russia's invasion of Ukraine violates that treaty. And as a signatory to that 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the U.S. has a definite interest in righting Putin's current wrongs.

[quote]In the final version of the deal, Russia promised not to attack Ukraine. While the U.S. and the U.K. assured Ukraine they would aid if it was attacked by Russia, that promised aid did not guarantee military support like a NATO country would receive.

In 2009, Russia and the U.S. announced that the assurances in the Budapest Memorandum would continue to remain in effect in the future.
[/quote]
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/global-conflicts/ukraine-agreed-to-give-up-nukes-in-exchange-for-safety-from-russia-invasion-attack-budapest-memorandum-treaty/536-8748a51f-10ee-47f0-be30-b4088750ee44

Sorry, but Russia promised [i]specifically[/i] NOT to invade Ukraine, and the U.S. promised [i]specifically[/i] to ASSIST Ukraine if the treaty were ever violated. And that's what the U.S. is doing now.

@ElwoodBlues Very true what you point out.
1
And NATO promised not to move an inch into the East...but it did !

So both broke their promises.

@revenant NATO made no such promise.

[quote] [b]Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”[/b]
Nov 6, 2014 [/quote]
[b]https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/[/b]

Putin's case rests on statements made during the reunification of East & West Germany.

[quote]After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a divided Germany and the four powers that had occupied it since World War II were discussing whether the country should be reunified.

The treaty they signed in 1990 extended NATO into East Germany, which had been zoned to the Soviet Union. To appease the Soviets, it also granted the territory a "special military status" that ruled out the stationing of foreign NATO forces there.

The agreement said nothing about NATO’s ability to expand farther east, a process that began with the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as members in 1999. Subsequent agreements, like the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, also made no mention of a prohibition on eastward expansion. [/quote]

In other words, NATO continued to add members eastwards during the 1990s and Russia never raised a single objection. The "German agreement" thing didn't come up until Putin needed an excuse for his illegal invasion.

@ElwoodBlues Yeah they did.

I think the last straw was Ukraine...just on the doorstep.

Hey...US did not like the Cuban missiles that much :)

@revenant No, they didn't. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic officially joined NATO in March 1999. If this was any kind of issue, why was Russia silent about it for 22 years???

The only support for the claim is Putin's word, and he wasn't even there. I, for one, would not put my faith in Putin's words.

@ElwoodBlues I am not Russian so I do not know. And Putin is not the only one left there.

Plenty of others do agree that NATO should have stayed put and keep its promises.

@revenant Plenty of folks don't like NATO's expansion; plenty of other folks do like it. There was no "German promise," written or oral, or any other such promise that NATO wouldn't expand east. The ONLY promise was no NATO bases in the former East Germany.

That's why, when Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic officially joined NATO in 1999, there was no fuss raised (except for celebrations in those former iron curtain countries).

@ElwoodBlues According to plenty of people there was. And that is why you have diplomats.

One source explaining in a clear manner would be DW if you want to look it up. German Channel.

@ElwoodBlues Not faulting you for this or whatever, but I always thought the "NATO expansion" framing was really shitty bc it sort of ignores the agency of all those eastern european countries that want to be a part of NATO, you know? Like the phrasing almost makes it sound like they're being pulled into the alliance or something, when the reality is that all those countries applied to join because they wanted to be safer, and NATO accepted because they decided it was mutually beneficial.

And yeah, love that you brought up the Budapest Memorandum. For some reason I feel like everyone always forgets about that whole treaty, and it really undermines Russia's credibility in this whole conflict, not that it had any at all to begin with.

@revenant [quote] DW if you want to look it up.[/quote] I fear you're steering me to some talking head on youtube in German. That won't help. Do you have anything written in English? Can be by a credentialed diplomat or credentialed journalist. Preferably with references.

[quote]And that is why you have diplomats.[/quote] Yes. Diplomats tend to use treaties and/or memoranda, or even letters, to record the details of agreements. They like documents signed by multiple parties.

I'd be more than a little surprised if there was no written record whatsoever of an agreement as important as "NATO will never expand east." All these diplomats and no written record whatsoever? Really??

@ElwoodBlues you will dismiss anything I say so it is pointless.

@revenant I can't dismiss a document signed by multiple diplomats.

@ElwoodBlues this all depends on whether or not you consider a verbal agreement as important as a written one.

I am like everybody else, I am trying to understand but admit there is so much people do not know. We are just part of the populace, we are neither politicians nor diplomats and the truth is very much trickled down according to what The Powers That Be think will manipulate our thinking also.

@revenant Yeah, none of us can be certain; all the people in power have agendas. And. Knowing what I know about diplomats, I'd be very surprised if they made an agreement and put nothing in writing. I admit it's not impossible though.

@ElwoodBlues @revenant The discussion who was really right is useless. The fact is that the war will continue. That's the sad part of thing. Somehow I don't think that Europe will wear the reconstruction cost whilst America is still steering away from actually asking the parties to start negociating. Fine, it's not done because Ukraine was attacked etc. And the Americans want Putin gone. You think that he'll be gone this year or even the next? If you think that you're really denying a history of long lasting sacrifice of the Russians despite of the harm to themselves. The fundamental issue is that American politics has lost the plot. Republicans have gone bananas and Democrates can't stop shooting themselves in the foot each time. Even Binden thinks that he's making polical capital out making fun of the Republicans. Doesn't he realise that the support base is there way in the 30s? PJ O'Rourke once told us that it's making fun of their leaders that angers their supporters. Why can't Bidden just stay presidential? Bad politics there. Likewise for the war in Ukraine now. Plenty of past presidents would have aimed to end a war that has the real possibility of destroying everyone instead. And no, I don't mean after using nukes. We're all coming out of a pandemic but instead of ending a great war we're in just wait and see who will fall down first. Even in armament some European countries already have given away all their assets. I mean bullets there and not aircraft. It's a money making machine for the top layer of people yet again

@val70 yes your last sentence is all too true. That war is just a money making machine for some. This fact is being masked on purpose by big ideals.
Europe is just acting like the servant of the US and it just cannot afford it. The US does not care for it is not in its backyard.
Oh Ukraine 's reconstruction has already been assigned to big US name companies.

Too many people refuse to see it for what it is and carry on believing in big ideals.
Meanwhile droves of people are dying just to make some rich.

@val70 says [quote] And the Americans want Putin gone. [/quote] Personally, I'll be happy with Putin gone from Ukraine. I was fine with Putin until he invaded Ukraine.

I see two key interrelated questions in the Ukraine war.

(1) Do international treaties - especially treaties of mutual defense - have any meaning? They are supposed to have deterrent value, but can they?

(2) When is yielding to prevent war the right strategy? When is appeasement the best approach??

I'm not the only one who sees parallels between the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the German invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1938 and 1939. On Sept 29–30, 1938, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France signed the Munich agreement, giving a big chunk of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Neville Chamberlain proclaimed "Peace in Our Time."

But it was an appeasement that didn't work. Germany plus Russia invaded Poland with minimal losses in Sept 1939. The international bully had learned that mutual defense treaties were meaningless. Appeasement was a dismal failure.

So my question to you, @val70, is this: what makes you think appeasing Putin will bring long term peace? What makes you think appeasement won't just whet his appetite for more conquest??

@ElwoodBlues Here's the secret. The allies in a venture like this will be always be disappointed in the end. You need to get out of those history holes that you're stuck in. Your opinion about appeasement can be easily challenged. Heck, there's now even a movie about how Chamberland gained time to prepare the country for the war that Churchill was going to fight. Do you think that the dash for Dunkirk was something an ally should do in a war against an invader of the other's country? Do you think that the Free Poles were treated fairly after World War Two? And lets not talk about what happened to the German-allied Cossacks after the war either, and not even about what happened to the black history of the Ukraine whilst this current war started and is still going on. Yes, I don't hear anything about that. Neat for those who want to continue to war war. Appeasing Putin you ask me, well, try asking me a question on how this war won't end with something like Korea or how it's quite impossible to neuter Russia. But then again, I'm all for getting ourselves to peace. Aren't you?

@val70 [quote]Here's the secret. The allies in a venture like this will be always disappointed in the end.[/quote] That statement is vague enough to be entirely useless.

[quote]there's now even a movie about how Chamberland [sic] gained time to prepare the country[/quote] Right. And all Chamberlain had to do to gain that time was to sacrifice Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg. BRILLIANT strategy.

Russia today is FAR weaker than Germany was in 1938. Russia today has exhausted it's 21st cent and late 20th cent weapons; they're relying on antique soviet era weapons. Russia has set itself back 20 years at least. Talk about buying time; that's a lot of time bought.

@ElwoodBlues LOL... trying insults, are we? You know perfectly that even FDR knived Churchill in the back whilst the war was still on because he wanted to destroy the British Empire. But then again, don't take my word for it again. But that's nothing compared to laughing at a spelling mistake done by someone who has dyslexia. Hurray for the bully! You've proven yourself there alright. I'm not wasting my time any more. Have a good life :-)

@val70 [quote]You know perfectly that even FDR knived Churchill in the back whilst the war was still on because he wanted to destroy the British Empire.[/quote] Lend lease was a knife in the back?? Over two million American servicemen passed through Britain during WWII was a knife in the back??? [b]LOL!!![/b]

@ElwoodBlues https://americansystemnow.com/fdr-versus-the-british-empire/