Thanks for your thoughtful replies. ;)

Far from being pessimistic or defeatist (neither are in my nature, by the way) I keep waiting for Z to lay out a muscular plan to end the war with concessions he is willing to make AND with concessions he needs Russia to make.

This is one war, I think, where no one can rely on the US or even Europe to move the diplomatic process along. But, if Europeans and NATO both step up to buttress Ukraine's position militarily and if they can come up with a new and effective strategy to make the continuation of this war considerably more painful for Putin, then I am hopeful that war can end on acceptable terms for all.

I am not being pessimistic nor defeatist when I say that I don't believe that Ukraine will be capable of securing all of Ukraine or that the Russians will be forced to withdraw from all of Ukraine - that is just being realistic and clear-eyed about what is happening on the ground and what is possible in terms of a deal to end this war.

This comment is my final engagement with you on this issue until Chris writes about it again. Hopefully by then, you will have reconsidered what it means to have a civil conversation about a topic we are both passionate about.

Cheers!

Well, Caddy, you give optimism whole new meaning.

Well, Elizabeth, you give pessimism and defeatism over reality the same, old meaning.

Did you skip over my last few comments? Why for the love of God would any fucking sane person WANT to see Ukraine struggle through before it begins serious negotiations to put an end to the death and destruction and upending of Ukrainian lives, only to end up right where they were at three years ago, or worse?

Now you’re back to ignoring feedback and repeating stupid stuff which happen to mirror Daddy Vladdy’s talking points. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

Do you think time is on Ukraine's side? I mean, how many more years of Ukraine merely holding the line/Russia making incremental advancements would you like to see Ukraine struggle through before it begins serious negotiations to put an end to the death and destruction and upending of Ukrainian lives, only to end up right where they were at three years ago, or worse?

Great posts. :)

Just for the record, such as it is around here, appeasement is most decidedly NOT a "foreign policy diplomatic tool" for any serious practitioner of foreign policy or diplomacy.

This!

Which is exactly why it was startling to see you advocate repeatedly that the United States and our allies demand <---[scratch that] persuade Zelensky to "accept the Russian offer" and "the only way out of it now," which is the definition of appeasement of the aggressor.

Progress!

Once one conquers a territory you have to have a 1:50 garrison people per population. So even if Putin took the entirety of Ukraine and ethnic cleared millions of Ukrainians Putin would need 600,000 troops to occupy just 30 million Ukrainians. That leave a lot of Russian borders relatively unguarded.

I think the Russian economy will struggle through this year so these actions may not happen this summer. But just like the wildly successful Autumn 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensive it wouldn’t surprise me if they did.

Top with even modest gains in the lands south of Zaporizhzhia and they’ll be able to blast the land bridge supply lines ans well and so much for the southwest frontlines.

For many months it’s been essentially a stalemate. I mean, not counting when Ukraine invaded Mother Russia to show Biden and all the other pussies in the West that Putin ain’t going to nuke anybody.

Russia has two categories of soldiers. Untrained and under equipped newbies are EXPENDABLES and are used that way. The experienced troops follow behind the expendables in so called meat waves. And at the rate they’re advancing it will take them another 36 years to conquer Ukraine.

Aussie analyst Perun believes Russia can this up for a year and after that it’s iffy. (1:03:11. Yep, over an hour.)

BUT a year from now the Russian energy industry and the great economy will collapse, the details of why this is so I have provided previously. Lemme know if you’d like a refresher I’m sure that I can find a (shorter) link.

Strategically Russia has already lost. Finland and Poland joined NATO and both punch over their weight. Sanctions and divestitures are strangling Russia and Europe is finally getting their act together.

Peace will happen immediately upon Russia withdrawing completely out of Ukraine, period. Even without the states Ukraine will win this war.

I’m kinda burnt out for today but I’ll be back in the morning to respond.

BTW I’m really enjoying our conversation.

Brother, it is past your bedtime and where you been? *points to watch* Heh. ;)

I’ma reply mañana Elizabeth.

Tomorrow Monday or tomorrow Tuesday? It is/was tomorrow... oh, wait... probably not where you are/were.

Thanks, Kick. This content doesn’t just happen without serious effort. I appreciate what you do.

And the snark, yes.

What snark? Heh.

I would like to go on record that "appeasement" is not altogether a dirty word and is a definite foreign policy diplomatic negotiating tool that could obviously be used strategically, albeit with the full knowledge that it much more often than not postpones rather than prevents aggression, particularly when/if you are a sovereign statehood that was formerly a part of the Soviet Union.

Say (hypothetically) that a nation were to make multiple strategic concessions to an aggressor. That without any doubt whatsoever could diffuse threats while buying time to prepare itself the future. However, appeasement to avoid conflict voluntarily shifts the balance of power in favor of the aggressor and thus leaves them in a stronger position to demand more concessions, violate treaties (again and again) and lather, rinse, repeat.

What Traitorous Trump is doing now is appeasement of Russia against our ally Ukraine because he has never not been Putin's Bitch Puppet.

Do you think Ukraine is winning this war? Should they continue doing what they are doing until they push Russia straight back to, well, Russia? Serious questions so don't try to duck them, okay?

Thanks, Kick. This content doesn’t just happen without serious effort. I appreciate what you do.

And the snark, yes.

No worries my Dear. I’m sure it feels like 22 questions by now.

Ha ha I just checked in. You crack me up, Gurl. :D ;D :D

You’re playing semantics here.

Good point.

Remember that the war started in 2014

Exactly.

and this was after all the other Russian revanchism (starting in Chechnya) combined with Putin’s public statements regarding the dissolution of the Soviet Union and that Ukrainians aren’t a real ethnicity made it clear that negotiation to appease would merely postpone AT BEST the inevitable destruction of Ukraine.

Exactly.

In December 2021, Russia was building up along Ukraine's border while Moscow was drafting "treaties" to NATO and the US and insisting the terms to maintain peace. These Kremlin ultimatums included demands of a permanent end to NATO's eastward expansion and a commitment that the US would never deploy forces or establish military bases in any state that was once a part of the Soviet Union (including the NATO member Baltic states). Additionally, there was a blanket demand that the US and allies would not take actions that affect Russia's security. Putin knew that Ukraine and the West wouldn't agree to his multiple ultimatums. He negotiated in bad faith to buy time to prepare for invasion.

How many years/decades of breaking treaties and agreements does one need to prove they are bad-faith negotiators? Putin has a long history: See 1994 Budapest Memorandum wherein Russia committed to "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine" and "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." The 2004 border treaty made with Ukraine and signed by Putin? Not even worth the paper it's written on.

Putin's issue has always been democracy in Ukraine moving eastward and threatening his Russian autocracy.

Not rocket science.

Oh, good... you're commenting tonight.

Looked SO BAD on 9 March 2022? Wrong!

Exactly.

Remember the miles of Russian vehicles abandoned because Russia didn't pack fuel, water and food?

Yes, hardware everywhere; that's what I said.

So Ukraine’s situation on 9 March 2022 was by no measure any kind of foregone conclusion.

Exactly. :)

At the risk of flogging the horse, I see that the quotes you give of Elizabeth advocating that Zelensky and Ukraine concede to Putin's war aims in the interests of peace and saving Ukrainian lives in battle, date from March 2022. That is, a month or two into the ongoing war and at a time when it looked bad for Ukraine on the battlefront.

Incorrect. It was many multiple years into the ongoing war and only days into the escalation of said war by the aggressor. It also did not look all that "bad" for Ukraine on the battlefront. All I can say is review the fact that Putin failed miserably in his objective, and it was a comedy of errors as witnessed by Russian hardware abandoned in fields all over Ukraine.

I would again argue, that since the war had commenced by this point, Elizabeth is no longer advocating 'appeasement'.

You would again be incorrect.

Appeasement is making concessions to avoid war.

And that is exactly what she advocated repeatedly.

It doesn't apply to making concessions to end a war - and I return to this because appeasement is such a loaded word that it should be carefully wielded.

Yes, John, it definitely does when those negotiations had been ongoing for months while Russia was amassing troops for months on the border of Ukraine and demanding concessions in order to avoid their further escalation of war and march to Kyiv. It wasn't her first call for appeasement of Putin's demands.

As I read Elizabeth's March 2022 post, she is advocating a negotiated surrender to end the war.

The negotiations to avoid the escalation of war had been ongoing for months; she had already been calling for appeasement before the war escalated. Her continued call for appeasement to stop Putin's (attempted) taking of Kyiv does not suddenly cease to be appeasement of the aggressor just because it was days into the escalation.

She feels that is Ukraine's only choice, because it is being, or has apparently been, or is about to be, defeated in war.

Nope. Not even close to being defeated, as I am sure MtnCaddy will attest if he commented today (I answer them in the order I read them).

If one were to disagree with her position at that time, one could call her "defeatist" - giving up too soon or being too willing to accept a possibly unnecessary defeat.

If only she had not been advocating for appeasement from the jump. I would never call her a "defeatist" because in no way whatsoever do I believe that she is. What I would say would be closer to "pragmatist," and that is by no stretch of the imagination meant to be insulting.

It's an ugly word too, of course. But as I see it, in March 2022 many of us were despairing that Ukraine would survive the Russian invasion, and were wondering what the outcome would be, or should be, when the Russians won.

I will just say that those of you who actually thought like that are likely to have had no knowledge regarding the Russian Army, or you definitely would never have thought that. Enough said.

Would it make sense - in March 2022 - for Zelensky and his people to try to concede only some territory, in return for a rump Ukrainian republic in the western provinces and an enforceable commitment to neutrality or an enforced commercial alliance with Russia?

You're asking me if appeasement of an aggressor would make sense? I'm quite sure you already know my answer.

Zelensky thought not, and continued to fight on - with amazing results. But in March of that year the question was at least an admissible one, I think.

I don't.

Good talk. :)

That list I supplied came from none other than the Israeli PM who I linked to at the time and who was trying in vain to bring a negotiated end to this war while Ukraine was in the strongest position it would ever be in terms of negotiating from strength.

Yes, obviously I set it in a separate block to denote it was someone else you were quoting within your comment; it is obviously a quote within your comment. Does it really matter whom you were quoting when you called for the appeasement of Russia's demands? Not in the least.

Granted, he didn't use the word 'demand' like I did. My frustration with Biden/US/NATO was showing when I wrote that. In the next comment or two I wrote that I was wrong to say demand and that persuade was much better, as I recall.

That's great; however, it doesn't change the fact whether or not you advocated for persuasion or a demand for appeasement. Your position was to appease the aggressor.

But, in any case, it seems that you are passionate about tapping out the word 'appeasement'. I wish you were as passionate about advocating for what is in the best interests of Ukraine.

If you'll review my responses to your multiple posts wherein you advocate for appeasement, you will see that I definitely was (and still am) passionate about what is in the best interests of Ukraine wherein I disagree with you (along with others) regarding your repeated calls for appeasement.

Move on. :)

Kindly explain why their historical relationship has any bearing on Ukraine’s contemporary existence and sovereignty. Make the connection for me.

I don't think Ukraine's historical relationship with Russia has any bearing on Ukraine's contemporary existence and sovereignty. I'm sorry if anything I have ever said has given you the impression that I did.

Question #5 How do you view Putin expanding his empire as any different than centuries of previous Czars expanded their empires?

I view Putin's war aims as they pertained to Ukraine in 2022 as quite delusional. There was no way Russia could occupy all of Ukraine, even if Putin's army had been successful in taking Kyiv.

Question #4 How would taking NATO membership off the table have been anything other than, Ukraine? Sure, we don’t care so help yourself!

So, this one confused me. I think you meant to ask how would leaving NATO membership for Ukraine up for debate and discussion and ON the negotiating table have been anything other than, 'Ukraine? Sure, we don't care so help yourself!'

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't think of any sound and muscular negotiating stance that Zelensky might have taken that would have included an open discussion about whether Ukraine would continue its aspiration to join NATO as a full-fledged member?

I think that a strong negotiating team could have come up with a deal that would have been amenable to Ukraine and that would not have precluded further negotiation in the future. All kinds of things would have to be part of the negotiation and strong negotiators for Ukraine could get quite creative and imaginative.

Here is an excerpt from a piece I read the other day that kind of talks about all of this:

"Ukraine could develop its own blueprint for security policy. Neutrality or nonalignment should not keep it from maintaining trained, highly capable, and well-equipped armed forces backed by a large pool of trained reservists. Having struggled with mobilization during the war and most likely unable to retain its wartime strength (estimated at 900,000 troops), Ukraine will have to rely on conscription and develop a large pool of trained reservists to be activated in a crisis. The Ukrainian defense industry has been praised for its agility, innovation, and ability to rapidly deliver weapons to the frontlines. With new investment, it can build on this record after the war. Other investments will be required—in deep, layered fortifications along the line of contact with Russia, including minefields, air defenses, early-warning systems, and electronic warfare capabilities.
While the defensive capabilities Ukraine will need to develop will be costly, it will have one significant advantage over other countries that had previously embraced neutrality: it is the largest country entirely in Europe. As Russia’s experience in the current war has demonstrated, Ukraine’s size by itself is a powerful deterrent to any attempt to conquer it.

In addition, any future cease-fire or armistice should bear the imprimatur of the UN Security Council. Additional security measures could be negotiated and implemented, such as a demilitarized zone and an international peacekeeping force also authorized by the Security Council. None of this will be easy, but just as neutrality, it should not be dismissed out of hand as impossible or irrelevant.

Moreover, Ukraine’s ties to the West—political, economic, and security—will be deeper than they ever were before the war. It will have a real opportunity to join the EU. It will receive reconstruction assistance for its economy and, having signed multiple bilateral security agreements with NATO member countries, it will have their support for rebuilding its defenses.

This in turn puts the spotlight on Ukraine’s supporters in the West. As many of them have said in the past two and a half years, Ukraine has been fighting for itself and for them. They owe Ukraine help to rebuild its economy and its defense to position it to deter and defend against the threat from Russia that will not go away with a cease-fire or even a peace treaty.
https://www.cfr.org/article/neutrality-alternative-ukraines-membership-nato

Question #3 In 2007 Putin lamented the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991 and made it clear he wanted to correct this. So he invaded Georgia, Kazakhstan, Chechnya twice and others. He told you what he wanted to do and then did so over and over. So what should Biden have done that would have stopped him in 2022?

Again, I don't know if anything would have stopped Putin in 2022. I just think that everyone could have tried harder to avoid war and by that I don't mean that Putin should have been appeased. In my book, diplomacy does not equal appeasement. Because by muscular diplomatic effort I don't mean give the farm away.

Question #22 - What would YOU have done that would have prevented Putin’s escalation of his 2014 invasion of Ukraine?

I don't know. Maybe there was nothing that could have been done to prevent Putin's escalation of his 2014 invasion of Ukraine. But that's not a reason to essentially ignore the situation which was a mere regional security challenge and hope for the best for eight years before it became a multi-faceted geopolitical crisis of international consequence.

You may have noticed by now that I'm a big fan of diplomacy of the muscular variety and I get upset when it isn't even seriously tried.

The argument was that Ukraine would be harbouring a lot of resentment and a taste for revenge against Russia which they would be freer to act on if they weren't a member of NATO and would be more or less restrained from doing anything rash if they were a NATO member. Anyway, I found that very interesting.

I've never advocated for Ukraine to “concede to Putin’s war aims in the interest of peace and saving Ukrainian lives in battle” nor have I ever advocated a negotiated “surrender” and, speaking of loaded words that should be carefully wielded, ‘surrender’ surely applies!

When I wrote that US/NATO should demand that Zelensky accept the Russian offer to negotiate through the Israeli mediation effort, that was more strongly worded than I would have liked and I quickly revised it, a comment or two later, preferring the gentler 'persuade'. At that time, when there was some hope for an early end to this stupid war, I was miffed and frustrated by how Z and the Biden administration dismissed the effort. Anyway, that's my excuse and I'm sticking with it. :)

I'm not into appeasement, either as I have always thought that Ukraine could and should come out of a muscular diplomatic solution to Russia’s aggression in fairly good shape with the option of fighting another day – not militarily but with more aggressive diplomacy – to eventually gain full control over all of its sovereign territory and internationally recognized borders.

At the time of the Israeli mediation attempt, Ukraine was actually in a strong negotiating position, having successfully and, I would say, spectacularly, stopped Putin’s army from taking Kyiv and, therefore, all of Ukraine. This was a pleasant surprise and could have led to the end of the war as not much has changed with respect to the facts on the battlefield ever since that huge Ukrainian victory.

If Z had taken the opportunity and had the Biden administration taken advantage of the Israeli effort to mediate an end to the war in muscular fashion without conceding the farm, so to speak, I think Ukraine might have gotten a much better deal than they may have to settle for now.

The Biden administration advised and persuaded Zelensky to dismiss the Israeli mediation effort and then continued to give him only enough military support to stave off defeat, all the while disingenuously hanging the idea of NATO membership in front of him.

So Ukraine continued to fight on with just enough support from US/NATO/Europe to stave off defeat with less than "amazing results". Which is where this war has been for the last two years except for the slow but steady incremental advancements by Russia.

And, far from being defeatist, I was hopeful, for a while, that Zelensky would be a strong negotiator, mostly because he had everything on his side and Putin had only unprovoked aggression at every turn.

By the spring of 2022, when the former Israeli PM, Naftali Bennett, proposed his “peace deal”, it had become fairly clear that this war would soon enter a stalemate phase and that Ukraine would likely not be in a better position than it already was in after having repelled the Russians from taking Kyiv as long as this war continued with US/NATO providing just enough support to keep Ukraine in it while being (too?) careful not to provoke a wider or more dangerous conflict.

You ask, ‘Would it have made sense – in March 2022 – for Z to try to concede only some territory in return for a rump Ukrainian republic in the Western provinces and an enforceable commitment to neutrality…’ - I think it made a great deal of sense to at least try and to, ah, demand some big concessions from Russia! What did Z or Biden or NATO or the EU have to lose?

Before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began, my principal argument here was that it was foolish for Biden to talk so loosely and publicly about the inevitability of eventual Ukrainian membership in NATO and stubbornly removing any discussion of that from the negotiating table to avoid war, knowing what a thorn in Russia’s side that has been for decades and what a red line it was for Putin. Now, would leaving NATO membership for Ukraine up for debate have stopped Putin in his delusional plan to occupy the whole of Ukraine? Would a clear promise not to entertain Ukrainian membership in NATO made any difference? Who the heck knows! But, Biden made sure that we’d never find out by his loose talk and, indeed, his longtime backing of Ukraine in NATO.

Now, does that mean that I blame Biden or the US or NATO or Europe for this latest Russian aggression against Ukraine? Of course, not. Putin is the only one to blame for this war and that should go without saying!

I still think Ukraine can come out of this nascent round of negotiations in fairly decent shape but it will take some heavy-duty muscular negotiating on the part of Zelensky and his European allies and it may even require sidelining the White House, somehow, if only for four more years. A girl can dream...

We have common ground on “silly”.

And it was foolish because this war was always only going to be avoided or, once it started, come to an end at the negotiating table with NATO membership for Ukraine, among other things, decidedly on it! And, it is still my opinion that it will be agreed by all the parties involved in these negotiations that Ukraine will remain outside of NATO, if not forever, then for a very, very long time.

Again, Putin made his intentions clear in 2007 and invaded in 2014 and then escalated in 2022.

This would be a good time to explain why Ukrainian membership in NATO shouldn’t/won’t happen.

Also, are you getting your talking points from “William Bradley” and paying for them. The guy who won’t put his work online for review and critique? You’re wasting your money!

I would again argue, that since the war had commenced by this point, Elizabeth is no longer advocating 'appeasement'. Appeasement is making concessions to avoid war.

You’re playing semantics here. Remember that the war started in 2014 and this was after all the other Russian revanchism (starting in Chechnya) combined with Putin’s public statements regarding the dissolution of the Soviet Union and that Ukrainians aren’t a real ethnicity made it clear that negotiation to appease would merely postpone AT BEST the inevitable destruction of Ukraine.

i see that the quotes you give of Elizabeth…date from March 2022. That is, a month or two into the ongoing war and at a time when it looked bad for Ukraine on the battlefront.

Looked SO BAD on 9 March 2022? Wrong! By that date the tide had already started to break Ukraine’s way, to wit:

1- The situation map on that day shows the Ukrainians had already beaten back the westward thrust towards Kiev along with part of the southern thrust out of Belorussian. Remember the miles of Russian vehicles abandoned because Russia didn’t pack fuel, water and food? Ukraine has captured more equipment from Russia than she started the war with.

2- the subsequent Russian withdrawal from north and east of Kiev was later that year was followed by the Ukrainian counteroffensive which cleared the threats to Kharkiv and recaptured Kherson in the south. The Russian Black Sea fleet started having a rough time of it early on.

So Ukraine’s situation on 9 March 2022 was by no measure any kind of foregone conclusion.

I appreciate the passion displayed in this debate, and the continuing attempts to requote old posts to support the debaters' points.

At the risk of flogging the horse, I see that the quotes you give of Elizabeth advocating that Zelensky and Ukraine concede to Putin's war aims in the interests of peace and saving Ukrainian lives in battle, date from March 2022. That is, a month or two into the ongoing war and at a time when it looked bad for Ukraine on the battlefront.

I would again argue, that since the war had commenced by this point, Elizabeth is no longer advocating 'appeasement'. Appeasement is making concessions to avoid war. It doesn't apply to making concessions to end a war - and I return to this because appeasement is such a loaded word that it should be carefully wielded.

As I read Elizabeth's March 2022 post, she is advocating a negotiated surrender to end the war. She feels that is Ukraine's only choice, because it is being, or has apparently been, or is about to be, defeated in war. If one were to disagree with her position at that time, one could call her "defeatist" - giving up too soon or being too willing to accept a possibly unnecessary defeat.

It's an ugly word too, of course. But as I see it, in March 2022 many of us were despairing that Ukraine would survive the Russian invasion, and were wondering what the outcome would be, or should be, when the Russians won.

Would it make sense - in March 2022 - for Zelensky and his people to try to concede only some territory, in return for a rump Ukrainian republic in the western provinces and an enforceable commitment to neutrality or an enforced commercial alliance with Russia?
Zelensky thought not, and continued to fight on - with amazing results. But in March of that year the question was at least an admissible one, I think.

That list I supplied came from none other than the Israeli PM who I linked to at the time and who was trying in vain to bring a negotiated end to this war while Ukraine was in the strongest position it would ever be in terms of negotiating from strength.

Granted, he didn't use the word 'demand' like I did. My frustration with Biden/US/NATO was showing when I wrote that. In the next comment or two I wrote that I was wrong to say demand and that persuade was much better, as I recall. :)

But, in any case, it seems that you are passionate about tapping out the word 'appeasement'. I wish you were as passionate about advocating for what is in the best interests of Ukraine.

I guess you didn't realize that the comment I was making and which you highlighted here and called appeasement was all about what the former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett was advocating as he tried to mediate between Russia and Ukraine.

You are wholly incorrect. It definitely wasn't PM Naftali Bennett who posted:

It seems the Ukrainian leader has a critical choice to make - Zelensky can be a martyr or a real leader.

The US and its NATO allies have a role to play here, too. They can demand he accept the Russian offer.

That would be acknowledging the actual reality on the ground before the war and the only way out of it now.

THAT is the definition of common sense.

[ Permalink ] [ Wednesday, March 9th, 2022 at 08:27 ]

https://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/03/08/pain-at-the-pump-popular-for-now/#comment-186850

Your definition of "common sense" is literally a call for the appeasement of Russia's demands. You even supply a list of the assumed demands that included (quoting your comment from 2022 but adding formatting):

He will be forced to:

- give up the contested Donbas region
- officially recognize the pro-Russian dissidents in Ukraine
- pledge that Ukraine will not join NATO
- shrink his army and declare neutrality.

*
After all this time, I cannot fathom why you cannot understand the fact that you advocated (on multiple occasions) for the Ukrainians to appease their Russian aggressor. Your comment specifically states that the "US and its NATO allies have a role to play... demand he accept the Russian offer... before the war and the only way out of it now."

This is appeasement.

This is a great example of how you can so easily turn one thing into quite another.

NO... No.... no. This was not the only instance you called for appeasement.

All efforts at revisionist history are ridiculous anyway, as this forum is archived.

Move forward.

Now, if Biden had not talked so loosely publicly about NATO membership for Ukraine being off the negotiating table, then would that have made Putin think twice about his delusion of occupying all of Ukraine in 2022? Probably not, but who the heck knows for sure - Biden made sure we'd never find out.

And here we are, you still blaming Biden, despite all your protestations to the contrary that you aren't.

The idea of NATO expanding to Ukraine has been around for a long time and has always been a unique thorn in Russia's side, the last straw some might say, decades before Putin came to power.

Incorrect. Check the timeline.

During Word War II: Ukraine suffered through brutal occupations by both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

1944: By the end of 1944, the Soviet Union regained full control of Ukraine from the retreating German forces, and post World War II, the Soviet Union implemented harsh measures to suppress Ukrainian resistance against their rule.

1949: Creation of NATO.

1991: At the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, Ukraine declared its independence after nearly 70 years under Moscow's control.

12/31/1999: President Boris Yeltsin resigned, and under the Constitution of Russia, the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, became the acting president.

Not even a complete decade between Ukraine finally gaining independence from Soviet rule wherein they could even begin to seriously begin talks to gain accession to NATO... forget about "several decades before Putin came to power."

2013: The Euromaidan protests began in response to President Yanukovych's rejection of an agreement of EU association. Yanukovych was ousted after the Revolution of Dignity and fled to Russia.

As far as history, this has been covered in this forum ad nauseam. Soon after Russia lost their man in Ukraine, Putin began the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and supported separatist movements in Donbas... with nary a mention of NATO. Repeat: Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 when Ukraine retained their neutral status. Indeed, public opinion prior to Russia's invasion in 2014 was also not in favor of joining the bloc of NATO countries, according to polls in Ukraine at that time, slightly over 20% of the country's population. Following Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Crimea and the eastern part of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, more than 50% percent of Ukrainians said they would vote for NATO membership. Following Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, the number of Ukrainians supporting NATO membership is now over 80%.

To reiterate: Ukraine's potential accession to NATO was not the reason Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014, and in 2022 it was a convenient Russian talking point and pretext for war.

Putin is a neo-imperialist who has repeatedly stated he does not recognize Ukraine as a sovereign state and does not believe Ukraine has the right to exist, and if Trump's views regarding Greenland, the Panama Canal, and turning Canada into "the 51st U.S. state" aren't neo-imperialist, I would definitely like to know what you believe qualifies.

Now who is putting words in someone's mouth? My statement was that you had posted a plethora of comments wherein you recommended appeasement and they're obviously public record. I don't give a flying duck about the Israeli PM's thoughts since he obviously doesn't comment here on this blog.

Sigh.

I guess you didn't realize that the comment I was making and which you highlighted here and called appeasement was all about what the former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett was advocating as he tried to mediate between Russia and Ukraine.

This is a great example of how you can so easily turn one thing into quite another.

Here's an interesting piece on the pros and cons of NATO membership for Ukraine.

https://www.cfr.org/report/ukraine-nato-and-war-termination#chapter-title-0-5

Question #1

What is silly or foolish about Biden and others insisting that Ukraine's membership in NATO is non-negotiable and in Ukraine's best interests?

First, you are right, Caddy, in that there is nothing silly or foolish about the former Warsaw Pact countries who have joined NATO and, of course, there is nothing silly or foolish about NATO membership, per se. So, there we have what's called common ground!

What I find silly and foolish about president Biden stating in such a matter of fact way before the 2022 invasion that the inevitability of Ukraine's membership in NATO was decidedly off the negotiating table is that many NATO countries were and still are opposed to Ukraine's membership mostly because they think it would lead to more conflict because its border with Russia will presumably be in dispute, indefinitely.

And it was foolish because this war was always only going to be avoided or, once it started, come to an end at the negotiating table with NATO membership for Ukraine, among other things, decidedly on it! And, it is still my opinion that it will be agreed by all the parties involved in these negotiations that Ukraine will remain outside of NATO, if not forever, then for a very, very long time.

Now, if Biden had not talked so loosely publicly about NATO membership for Ukraine being off the negotiating table, then would that have made Putin think twice about his delusion of occupying all of Ukraine in 2022? Probably not, but who the heck knows for sure - Biden made sure we'd never find out.

The idea of NATO expanding to Ukraine has been around for a long time and has always been a unique thorn in Russia's side, the last straw some might say, decades before Putin came to power.

So for these reasons, saying that Ukrainian membership in NATO is non-negotiable has never made a lot of geopolitical sense to me.

Having said all that, does that mean that I blame Biden/US/NATO for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Absolutely, positively, unequivocally NOT and I have never said that I did - not here, not anywhere.

And here's some more common ground - we can all agree that Putin alone is to blame for this war. I've also written that before.

I hope that you will find this a satisfactory answer to your first question but do let me know if you need more.

The discussion that has been going on here in the comments sections of Chris’s blog over the last three years regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has been less than enlightening.

Meaning (I believe) you disagree with our opinions that don't mesh with that of yours and your favorite ex-columnist riddled with Russian talking points.

I hope that, going forward, should Chris write about the subject (I still would prefer not to take up any space in the comments sections of Chris's blog discussing topics that aren’t part of his columns)...

If off-topic posting is genuinely an issue for you, I suspect you know exactly where to begin that conversation, and it definitely isn't with John, MtnCaddy or me.

... that we are all mature enough to have a cogent discussion about serious and difficult subject matter where we each have our own valid and often passionate opinions without the childish name-calling, insults and other accusatory language.

Again, you're preaching to the choir and not the congregation desperately in need of the sermon.

Now, I would like to set the record straight on my thinking regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 once and for all. I will leave the proof of the veracity of what I will say here up to our resident archivist. I am sure that Kick will be more than happy to oblige whenever she feels the need.

I am generally always happy; however, I cannot promise "more than happy." What even is "more than happy"? Happy is happy.

I will simply outline my thinking and how it has evolved over the course of the last three years, answering what some consider to be outstanding questions as best I can.

I would be more than happy if you would cut to the chase. Oh, breakthrough! I think I now understand "more than happy."

I am no geopolitical expert but have been following world events, historical and current, for the last four decades, in a more or less casual manner. Consequently, I have always been open to learning more about these issues. Which is why I crave a kind of discussion that sheds more light than heat, as they say.

One does not have to be a "geopolitical expert" to understand the concept that war is always existential and therefore not a subject wherein you should expect anything less than heat.

This is necessarily going to take some time and more than a few non-brief comments, to be sure. Because I want to fully address all of the accusations and misguided assumptions that have been made in reaction to the comments I have already made, simple to understand as apparently they are.

Yes, very simple. When you unquestionably advocate that NATO countries should demand that Ukraine accept Putin's offer, people might be inclined to correctly refer to that as appeasement.

Let me start with a short note to address some of the complaints and criticisms and false accusations that have been directed my way in recent days.

You needn't bother; it's all archived, and any attempt at revisionist history is likely to resemble Trumpism.

I have never dodged Caddy’s repeated and disrespectfully asked questions nor have I failed to watch the video he keeps asking me to watch.

Disrespectfully? That's ridiculous. You definitely have failed to repeatedly answer his questions... as archived. Obviously, not one of us has any idea what videos you have or have not watched until you make a comment regarding the content of that video that would indicate you have.

I have given him my answers to his questions – as recently as just the other day - within this very thread, in fact - more than once and have also given him my thoughts on the video(s) he has asked me to watch. He doesn’t like my answers, I guess, so he keeps asking.

So here's the thing, Elizabeth. You have not genuinely addressed his questions. Allow me to show you how.

1- What exactly is “silly” about it? Funny how ALL the former Warsaw Pact countries who rushed to join NATO didn’t and still don’t find NATO membership to be silly.

There's actually really not anything whatsoever "silly" [Elizabeth's term, not mine] about Ukraine applying for NATO membership. Indeed, in 1992, shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and Ukraine regaining it independence, relations between Ukraine and NATO were formally established when Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, now known as the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. In February 1992, NATO paid an official visit to Kyiv, and in July 1992, Ukraine's president Kravchuk visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels. The Ukrainian embassy in Brussels was then opened in September 1992, and in February 1994, Ukraine was the first former country of the Soviet Union to conclude a framework agreement with NATO, the Partnership for Peace initiative. Cut to the chase: It is no less in the best interests of Ukraine to apply for NATO membership than Lithuania, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland, and Sweden.

2- what would YOU have done that would have prevented Putin’s escalation of his 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

Good question. Outside of global thermonuclear war, which one would ostensibly wish to avoid, Putin seems determined to ensure that democracy does not continue its march toward the East. He obviously knows that NATO is a peacekeeping force that will not attack unless warranted. If Putin wished to ensure that countries on his Western border retained neutrality, the conquering of Ukraine and the self-fulfillment of that which you (claim you) cannot tolerate would be the absolute worst way to occupy oneself (pun intended).

3- in 2007 Putin lamented the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991 and made it clear he wanted to correct this. So he invaded Georgia, Kazakhstan, Chechnya twice and others. He told you what he wanted to do and then did so over and over.

Also, how many treaties must one break to prove they're untrustable?

So what should Biden have done that would have stopped him in 2022?

"The US and its NATO allies have a role to play here, too. They can demand he [Zelensky] accept the Russian offer." Just kidding. Appeasement of an aggressor wouldn't cause less war and would be demonstrably highly likely to create more war. Putin hasn't exactly been shy about his thoughts regarding Ukraine.

4- how would taking NATO membership off the table have been anything other than, Ukraine? Sure, we don’t care so help yourself!

This also wasn't exactly Ukraine's first rodeo with Russia... and far from it. Indeed, it also wasn't like there was no history with Russia and its dealings with countries of the former Soviet Union. As for Ukraine, it was once briefly the third-largest nuclear power on Earth after the Soviet Union's collapse in late 1991. Ukraine subsequently made the decision to completely denuclearize in exchange for written guarantees for Ukraine's security from Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. See the Budapest Memorandum. Russia violated that agreement. The parliament of Ukraine had enshrined its intention to join NATO years before Biden entered the decision-making picture in 2022, and for obvious reasons.

Good questions, MtnCaddy.

I don’t understand that behavior.

I do.

As for Kick, rather than engage honestly and respectfully with me in an effort to promote understanding, on both our parts, she mistakenly accuses me of parroting Kremlin talking points and advocating appeasement since before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, as if I am not able to think for myself nor form any of my own opinions on what is happening in the crazy world in which we live.

Okay, then: Respectfully, you honestly advocated for appeasement; it's archived in no uncertain terms, and you continue to this day to post opinions that echo Kremlin talking points. One obviously forms their opinions based on history and the opinions of others, and your opinions definitely echo those of Kremlin talking points... as archived herein.

Over the course of the next few days and mostly for the benefit of John, whom I think provides the gold standard of engagement here in Weigantia, I will provide a comprehensive break-down of my thinking and a summary of the comments I have made here over the years on this topic.

No need to do it for MtnCaddy (I suspect) and certainly not me; it's archived prolifically herein and we've obviously already got it tattooed on our brains (figure of speech, obviously).

I will be going from memory, such as it is these days, and certainly not back-tracking through three years worth of pages in this blog. Again, I will leave that task to Kick if she feels I have led anyone astray.

So, yeah, that's not happening with (me) Kick, as I highly suspect an attempt at a rewrite of history for which there's honestly no need on an archived forum. It's done.

Your time would honestly be better spent moving forward, and a good start would be answering MtnCaddy's questions which you may think you've already done, but you haven't even come close to scratching the surface.

What I have always found to be a foolish idea - up until the current situation vis-a-vis the US-Russia nexus - is Ukraine inside NATO, simply based on its historical relationship with the Soviet Union and Russia and the context of the cold war and its aftermath. In reality, no matter how this war ends, Ukraine is nowhere near being in a position where it will need to be in order to be accepted by NATO for full membership.

foolish idea

Okay, foolish idea or silly idea — they’re the same pejorative concepts.

simply based on its historical relationship with the Soviet Union and Russia and the context of the cold war and its aftermath.

Kindly explain why their historical relationship has any bearing on Ukraine’s contemporary existence and sovereignty. Make the connection for me.

The discussion that has been going on here in the comments sections of Chris’s blog over the last three years regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has been less than enlightening. I hope that, going forward, should Chris write about the subject (I still would prefer not to take up any space in the comments sections of Chris's blog discussing topics that aren’t part of his columns), that we are all mature enough to have a cogent discussion about serious and difficult subject matter where we each have our own valid and often passionate opinions without the childish name-calling, insults and other accusatory language. I continue to look forward to that day! A girl can dream.

Now, I would like to set the record straight on my thinking regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 once and for all. I will leave the proof of the veracity of what I will say here up to our resident archivist. I am sure that Kick will be more than happy to oblige whenever she feels the need. I will simply outline my thinking and how it has evolved over the course of the last three years, answering what some consider to be outstanding questions as best I can. I am no geopolitical expert but have been following world events, historical and current, for the last four decades, in a more or less casual manner. Consequently, I have always been open to learning more about these issues. Which is why I crave a kind of discussion that sheds more light than heat, as they say.

This is necessarily going to take some time and more than a few non-brief comments, to be sure. Because I want to fully address all of the accusations and misguided assumptions that have been made in reaction to the comments I have already made, simple to understand as apparently they are.

Let me start with a short note to address some of the complaints and criticisms and false accusations that have been directed my way in recent days.

I have never dodged Caddy’s repeated and disrespectfully asked questions nor have I failed to watch the video he keeps asking me to watch. I have given him my answers to his questions – as recently as just the other day - within this very thread, in fact - more than once and have also given him my thoughts on the video(s) he has asked me to watch. He doesn’t like my answers, I guess, so he keeps asking. I don’t understand that behavior.

As for Kick, rather than engage honestly and respectfully with me in an effort to promote understanding, on both our parts, she mistakenly accuses me of parroting Kremlin talking points and advocating appeasement since before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, as if I am not able to think for myself nor form any of my own opinions on what is happening in the crazy world in which we live.

Over the course of the next few days and mostly for the benefit of John, whom I think provides the gold standard of engagement here in Weigantia, I will provide a comprehensive break-down of my thinking and a summary of the comments I have made here over the years on this topic. I will be going from memory, such as it is these days, and certainly not back-tracking through three years worth of pages in this blog. Again, I will leave that task to Kick if she feels I have led anyone astray.

... to be continued! (but not tonight)

Cheers!

C’mon Elizabeth! It’s just five questions and I’m dying to hear your logic.

Did you not see my answers to your questions in my [130] and then your own response to that in [134-135]?

Let me try to elaborate a bit more and respond to your [135]:

So you’re saying that because Russia has occupied Ukraine for hundreds of years they should be allowed to re conquer Ukraine?

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that if Zelensky takes steps to end this war now through tough negotiation (I believe Z will be a MUCH tougher negotiator than Trump would ever be), then I think Ukraine would end up holding on to more of its territory in the long run and, eventually, regain most if not all of its internationally recognized border - not through military force, obviously, but through persistent and strong-headed diplomacy.

If you assert that corruption dooms Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership then you don’t know that there are two chapters in the history of Ukrainian corruption: ... ... Since [2014] it has made vast improvements [on addressing corruption] ... ... And NATO will become even more relevant should America withdraw from it.

I don't assert that corruption dooms Ukraine's potential NATO membership but it still has a very, very long way to go to meet all of NATO's requirements for prospective members. I do think that Putin has succeeded in making Ukrainian membership in NATO far more likely now than it ever was before his latest invasion and delusional attempt to occupy the whole of Ukraine so, there's that. :)

There have been many statements of fact here that are merely misguided assumptions.

Most of them coming directly from you in advocating the appeasement of the Russian dictator while posting talking points that come directly from the Kremlin.

I'll be back here tonight when I have more time to explain again my thinking on this issue since before the 2022 invasion.

Elizabeth Miller wrote:

MtnCaddy,

Zelensky can fortify Ukraine's independence but will have to pay a heavy price, the sources said. Assumptions are that he will be forced to give up the contested Donbas region, officially recognize the pro-Russian dissidents in Ukraine, pledge that Ukraine will not join NATO, shrink his army and declare neutrality. If he declines the proposal, the outcome may be terrible: thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainians will die and there is a high probability that his country will completely lose its independence.

It seems the Ukrainian leader has a critical choice to make - Zelensky can be a martyr or a real leader.

The US and its NATO allies have a role to play here, too. They can demand he accept the Russian offer.

That would be acknowledging the actual reality on the ground before the war and the only way out of it now.

THAT is the definition of common sense.

[ Permalink ] [ Wednesday, March 9th, 2022 at 08:27 ]

https://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/03/08/pain-at-the-pump-popular-for-now/#comment-186850

*
I reiterate: Your so-called "definition of common sense" is literally the definition of appeasement of an aggressor.

While you're explaining to John your "thinking," please kindly finally answer MtnCaddy's questions that you've continued to dodge, and please explain why on Earth you would advocate that the "US and its NATO allies have a role to play here, too. They can demand he accept the Russian offer." That demand for which you advocated is the literal definition of appeasement of Putin's "offer," which you -- in no uncertain terms -- specifically stated that the United States and NATO should demand of Zelensky/Ukraine, i.e., the appeasement of the Russian dictator who'd proven repeatedly that his agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on.

I would love to discuss all of this with you!

And MtnCaddy (I presume) and I definitely would love for either of you to explain to us how that post (and similar posts of yours) wherein you literally provide the aggressor's terms and then advocate (demand) for the appeasement of the terms of an aggressor.

Thanks for the extensive reply. I think my post today on the misuses of 'appeasement' in characterizing Elizabeth's positions was about her current posts - not her past ones, before the war. I don't remember them, I guess, while you do.

While my posts in characterizing her position were in definite reference to her past posts.

Maybe you are accusing her of having been a "appeaser" in the past, and of being a "defeatist" in the present - now that Putin's war that was merely threatened in the past is actually being waged?

I'm not accusing her of anything in the present; however, her posts in the past were definitely those of appeasement.

Again, thanks for your considerate answering post.

Thank you for yours. :)

Thanks for being a voice of reason on this blog and particularly on the issue of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

There have been many statements of fact here that are merely misguided assumptions. I'll be back here tonight when I have more time to explain again my thinking on this issue since before the 2022 invasion.

I would love to discuss all of this with you!

Thanks for the extensive reply. I think my post today on the misuses of 'appeasement' in characterizing Elizabeth's positions was about her current posts - not her past ones, before the war. I don't remember them, I guess, while you do.

Maybe you are accusing her of having been a "appeaser" in the past, and of being a "defeatist" in the present - now that Putin's war that was merely threatened in the past is actually being waged?

Again, thanks for your considerate answering post.

I have been trying to follow this conversation, and as I noted before, you seem to be talking past each other.

MtnCaddy and I are not talking past each other on this issue and have not been doing so for multiple years now. If we seem to be "talking past" Elizabeth, it's probably because we have recently learned she does not understand the concept of appeasement.

But what I noticed was: Hitler had not attacked Czechoslovakia yet. He was threatening to, but there was no war at that point.

That is sadly incorrect. He Who Must Not Be Named had already made clear his expansionist aims in March 1936 when -- in violation of the Treaty of Versailles -- he ordered his German forces to reoccupy the Rhineland (bordering France). In March 1938, he then annexed Austria. At the conference in Munich that September, Chamberlain seemed to have averted war by agreeing that Germany could occupy the Sudetenland (the part of Czechoslovakia wherein they spoke German).

So what Chamberlain (and the French) did was give Hitler the strategic Sudetenland provinces of Czechoslovakia, fatally weakening the rump state, in return for a promise not to make war on the rest of that country.

After Germany's violation of the Treaty of Versailles in the Rhineland and its annexation of Austria, I cannot fathom why anyone in Britain would allow it.

He was "appeased" - given what he said he wanted, in return for "peace in our time" as Chamberlain unfortunately put it.

Britain and France were weak, and HWMNBN had already proven he could not be trusted. They were foolish... except, of course, Churchill.

Now to our own time. Putin wants, say, the eastern Donbas provinces and the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine, which he claims are really Russian not Ukrainian (like Hitler said the Sudetenland was really ethnically German, not Czech). If the West under Biden or Trump in the 2012-2022 period had negotiated that Russia would get those provinces without any war or opposition by the West -- well, that would have been appeasement.

Obviously.

No question.

So "appeasement" was discredited in the eyes of history.

But Biden and the West did not do that, even if they didn't go to war to return Crimea and the easternmost provinces to Ukraine in that time. They didn't formally appease Putin by explicitly agreeing that the Crimean annexation was fine, as long as Putin promised that that was all he wanted. They imposed sanctions and refused to recognize the annexations.

Okay.

Now cut to 2025. Russia did invade the rest of Ukraine, and has effectively occupied the eastern 20% of the country, and seems able to hold onto it despite heroic attempts by Ukraine to retake it. There is an ongoing war.

Why not cut to 2021 when Russia began amassing thousands of troops on the border of Ukraine and subsequently to 2022 when they threatened to escalate the ongoing conflict unless a laundry list of numerous Russian demands were met including the prohibitions against Ukraine joining NATO?

Now Elizabeth here on our forum advocates that Ukraine face the facts that it has lost the war - that is, it cannot regain its territory by full-out military force.

Not exactly. Elizabeth advocated multiple times on our forum that Ukraine and the West should appease Putin's demands (see above at [114]) in order to avoid the escalation of war in 2022, which she appeared at that time to believe Ukraine had no chance of winning. Subsequent to that time, she has actually said that Ukraine did win because Putin did not achieve his goal.

Why not, she says (if I understand her) negotiate a peace on that basis, much as many other countries in a losing position in a war have negotiated peaces in which the opponent scores a limited victory, and gains the territory it fought to conquer? The result is loss of territory - and peace, with its cessation of casualties and destruction and death by attrition.

No offense whatsoever, but it appears you don't understand her position on this issue.

That is not appeasement, as I see it. I may not agree with Elizabeth here - but she is making a sensible argument on facts and realism that one may or may not concede, but that do have a military and political logic, unpleasant as it is to those who support Ukraine and want it to be free of Russian control and influence.

In 2022, to have capitulated to Putin's laundry list of demands -- that included severe weakening of Ukraine's fighting forces -- in order to avoid his promised escalation of war and taking of Kyiv would have been appeasement of the highest order. I cannot fathom why anyone would appease Putin considering his words and actions prior to 2022, including the violation of prior treaties, etc.

It's not appeasement though. Appeasement attempts to prevent a war by conceding territory to an aggressor.

Appeasement is a strategy of foreign policy wherein a nation makes multiple concessions and/or grants advantages to an aggressor or a potential aggressor in order to prevent war/avoid conflict and can involve but does not require the giving up of territory to appease.

The war has already happened.

It had not escalated when Russia presented its list of demands to avoid their expanded aggression and taking of Kyiv and thus Ukraine.

It's not appeasement to - if one takes this course - recognize a military loss and negotiate the best settlement one can get.

However, in 2022, Ukraine had definitely not already lost when they refused to appease Putin's list of demands in order to avoid what Putin thought would be a few weeks march to Kyiv and to victory. Fast forward to 2025, and Ukraine still has not lost despite refusing to capitulate to Putin's list of demands.

Thanks for that. I didn't say that one could disagree with Elizabeth's apparent conclusion that Ukraine had best settle for a military stalemate - essentially, a defeat if it ends with Russia holding territory it didn't hold before its invasion. You argue that, to the contrary, Ukraine will eventually succeed and should keep fighting on with the support of its Western allies as Russia's strength fails.

Very good. The debate is, however, not analogous to Munich 1938, and its infamous "appeasement". Now, so to speak, we are in France in spring 1940, and you and Elizabeth are debating whether to continue fighting Germany on French soil, or ask for an armistice and negotiate for a remnant French state in Vichy. It's not the same situation militarily, of course. But the debate is about whether and how to end an ongoing war of invasion - not whether and how to appease Russia to prevent an invasion.

Thus my point - I don't think "appeasement" is what this argument is about, so the word could well be dropped.

Again, thanks for your response.

No, they’re not. America is important but not indispensable. For example, you remember that $61B aid package the adults finally dragged across the finish line? Only 10% of that has actually been delivered because 80% of this aid is spent on America munitions and we’re sending Ukraine equipment that we otherwise will scrap.

Europe combined has contributed roughly $175B and the Americans a little over $140B. So Biden getting Europe together on the same page has been the most important thing that America has done for Ukraine because American ammo is more trickling than pouring in.

But it’s NOT a military loss it’s essentially a stalemate, and time is against Putin. A big reason why it’s a stalemate is because the West slow walked weapons upgrades to Ukraine because Putin kept threatening to nuke London. Last year fucking Biden finally allowed the use of American weapons to strike targets INSIDE Russia. It took Ukraine invading Kursk Oblast to prove it was all saber rattling. F-16s are arriving which will allow Ukraine to achieve local air superiority. Which can definitely help crack the Russian lines.

Apparently you skipped over,

Quite the opposite. It’s Russia that’s negotiating from a position of weakness. Let’s remember that Russia has traded all of the costs of war for these results:

Russia has spent enormous amounts of treasure and blood for a stalemate. The non-American West is united like never before and now features new members Finland and Sweden. Russia is the most sanctioned regime in human history, and they’re getting nothing but tighter. Inflation in Russia is officially 9.4% but a lot of staples have gotten considerably more expensive. The Russian prime rate is 21%. The Ruble has fallen to a penny. Westerners ran all those Siberian resource extraction operations because neither the Russians nor the Chinese know how. And their parts and expertise are gone and they’re not coming back. The Ukrainians have already taken out a seventh of Russia’s oil refineries and the “shadow fleet” has seen four sinkings to date. And how about that Black Sea Fleet? Russian crude will come off the market because they cannot store what they cannot export. When the wells and pipelines stop flowing they’ll freeze. Which means redrilling and rebuilding everything. That least happened in the 1990s and it took them thirty years to do this.

Even if none of this is true allowing Putin to hold a square meter of Ukraine tells him (and China) to “do whatever the hell they want,” no?

Ukrainian peace plan: Russia get the fuck out of our country.

I have been trying to follow this conversation, and as I noted before, you seem to be talking past each other.

But I did notice one thing, when the Chamberlain / Munich example was brought up explicitly as an example of "appeasement" that is, frankly, the classic to which everyone points. For instance, the Vietnam War was justified for many years with the argument that one should never again appease a tyrant with a negotiated handover of a weak client state.

But what I noticed was: Hitler had not attacked Czechoslovakia yet. He was threatening to, but there was no war at that point. So what Chamberlain (and the French) did was give Hitler the strategic Sudetenland provinces of Czechoslovakia, fatally weakening the rump state, in return for a promise not to make war on the rest of that country. He was "appeased" - given what he said he wanted, in return for "peace in our time" as Chamberlain unfortunately put it.

Now to our own time. Putin wants, say, the eastern Donbas provinces and the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine, which he claims are really Russian not Ukrainian (like Hitler said the Sudetenland was really ethnically German, not Czech). If the West under Biden or Trump in the 2012-2022 period had negotiated that Russia would get those provinces without any war or opposition by the West -- well, that would have been appeasement. No question. And sure, the obvious parallel with Hitler would be that Putin might still have gone on to invade the rest of Ukraine a few years later, for a full conquest and absorbtion of the whole country, just as Hitler did only a few months after the Munich agreement. So "appeasement" was discredited in the eyes of history.

But Biden and the West did not do that, even if they didn't go to war to return Crimea and the easternmost provinces to Ukraine in that time. They didn't formally appease Putin by explicitly agreeing that the Crimean annexation was fine, as long as Putin promised that that was all he wanted. They imposed sanctions and refused to recognize the annexations.

Now cut to 2025. Russia did invade the rest of Ukraine, and has effectively occupied the eastern 20% of the country, and seems able to hold onto it despite heroic attempts by Ukraine to retake it. There is an ongoing war.

Now Elizabeth here on our forum advocates that Ukraine face the facts that it has lost the war - that is, it cannot regain its territory by full-out military force. Why not, she says (if I understand her) negotiate a peace on that basis, much as many other countries in a losing position in a war have negotiated peaces in which the opponent scores a limited victory, and gains the territory it fought to conquer? The result is loss of territory - and peace, with its cessation of casualties and destruction and death by attrition.

That is not appeasement, as I see it. I may not agree with Elizabeth here - but she is making a sensible argument on facts and realism that one may or may not concede, but that do have a military and political logic, unpleasant as it is to those who support Ukraine and want it to be free of Russian control and influence.

It's not appeasement though. Appeasement attempts to prevent a war by conceding territory to an aggressor. The war has already happened. It's not appeasement to - if one takes this course - recognize a military loss and negotiate the best settlement one can get.

In reality, no matter how this war ends, Ukraine is nowhere near being in a position where it will need to be in order to be accepted by NATO for full membership. By that time who knows if NATO will even still be relevant.

If NATO was so dang irrelevant, why on Earth would anyone think a pledge not to join it would satisfy Vladimir Putin?

It never ceases to amaze me that it's generally the same people who think Putin would be somehow placated by Ukraine's written declaration that they would not or will never join NATO are the same ones who believe that Ukraine is "nowhere near" or "will never" be accepted by NATO. If Ukraine (allegedly) isn't near/never will be accepted by NATO, then why on Earth would a written declaration to abstain the joining serve to pacify the likes of Vladimir Putin? Serious question.

How do you suppose a person who routinely knowingly makes written "promises" with no intention whatsoever of keeping them views others who make written promises?

I had hoped that Team Biden would have handled the Ukraine-Russia situation by doubling down on diplomatic efforts to resolve that regional security challenge rather than ensuring that all out war would ensue without a substantial effort to avoid it.

Honestly, though, your repetition of this Russian talking point is seriously worn out at this point. Blaming the United States and/or Ukraine for the escalation of war because they did not bend to Putin's list of demands is literally a Russian talking point.

Would a serious diplomatic effort - one that didn't include taking a major element off the negotiating table - have made any difference to Putin's intentions? I don't know.

When Ukraine's parliament voted to remove Viktor Yanukovych (he fled to Russia), they discussed the idea but chose at that time not to change their neutral status. After losing his man in Ukraine, Putin then occupied and annexed Crimea and in August 2014 invaded eastern Ukraine to support its separatist proxies. Because of Putin's actions, in December 2014 Ukraine's parliament voted to end its neutral status, and in 2018 voted to enshrine their goal of NATO membership in their Constitution.

Taking NATO membership off the negotiating table made the rest of the diplomatic effort non-serious.

It had been off the table for years and had been enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution.

If Putin had thoughts of expanding his empire, then his unwise choice to invade Ukraine with the intention of occupying the whole country should put those delusions to rest.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Finally, I am having great difficulty posting comments because of some sort of issue with passwords and error messages about connections that are not secure...

Remember when many of us discussed this same issue in a prior comments section around Christmas, and you stated you weren't having any problems at all? Remember how Bashi saved Christmas by kindly informing us that installing Firefox would clear the issues? It works, you know. :)

Please look up the definition of appeasement. It's exactly what you advocated multiple times on this public forum.

~ Kick

False.

Okay, so it's hereby established you actually have no idea whatsoever regarding the definition of "appeasement." We've definitely identified the problem.

Are you sure that you want to be on the record here calling the former Israeli PM, Naftali Bennett, an appeaser?

Now who is putting words in someone's mouth? My statement was that you had posted a plethora of comments wherein you recommended appeasement and they're obviously public record. I don't give a flying duck about the Israeli PM's thoughts since he obviously doesn't comment here on this blog.

Think before answering!

You should definitely have done some thinking before posting such an asinine question since I obviously never made any such statement... unless you're prepared to reveal that you're actually the former Israeli PM, Naftali Bennett. That statement was obviously about you.

And learn how to discuss tough subjects respectfully.

Oh, FFS. I have a better idea: Learn the definition of "appeasement" since you're on record doing it repetitively.

… to resolve that regional security challenge rather than ensuring that all out war would ensue without a substantial effort to avoid it.

1- What exactly is “silly” about it? Funny how ALL the former Warsaw Pact countries who rushed to join NATO didn’t and still don’t find NATO membership to be silly.

2- what would YOU have done that would have prevented Putin’s escalation of his 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

3- in 2007 Putin lamented the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991 and made it clear he wanted to correct this. So he invaded Georgia, Kazakhstan, Chechnya twice and others. He told you what he wanted to do and then did so over and over. So what should Biden have done that would have stopped him in 2022?

5- how do view Putin expanding his empire as any different than centuries of previous Czars expanded their empires?

So you’re saying that because Russia has occupied Ukraine for hundreds of years they should be allowed to re conquer Ukraine?

In reality, no matter how this war ends, Ukraine is nowhere near being in a position where it will need to be in order to be accepted by NATO for full membership. By that time who knows if NATO will even still be relevant.

If you assert that corruption dooms Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership then you don’t know that there are two chapters in the history of Ukrainian corruption:

The 90s right up to Maidan in 2014 had Soviet-style Russian-oriented corruption. The Ukrainian people rose up and chased Yanukovich back to Russia because they wanted to join the West. Since then it has made vast improvements — because the Ukrainian people were sick of corruption, hello. And NATO will become even more relevant should America withdraw from it.

Liz
47

Of course, Biden remains completely wedded to the silly notion that it is in Ukraine's best interests to apply for NATO membership, so there's that. :(

Of course, NATO is not silly nor is NATO membership. What I have always found to be a foolish idea - up until the current situation vis-a-vis the US-Russia nexus - is Ukraine inside NATO, simply based on its historical relationship with the Soviet Union and Russia and the context of the cold war and its aftermath. In reality, no matter how this war ends, Ukraine is nowhere near being in a position where it will need to be in order to be accepted by NATO for full membership. By that time who knows if NATO will even still be relevant.

I had hoped that Team Biden would have handled the Ukraine-Russia situation by doubling down on diplomatic efforts to resolve that regional security challenge rather than ensuring that all out war would ensue without a substantial effort to avoid it. Would a serious diplomatic effort - one that didn't include taking a major element off the negotiating table - have made any difference to Putin's intentions? I don't know.

Taking NATO membership off the negotiating table made the rest of the diplomatic effort non-serious.

If Putin had thoughts of expanding his empire, then his unwise choice to invade Ukraine with the intention of occupying the whole country should put those delusions to rest.

Finally, I am having great difficulty posting comments because of some sort of issue with passwords and error messages about connections that are not secure...

Please look up the definition of appeasement. It's exactly what you advocated multiple times on this public forum.

False.

Are you sure that you want to be on the record here calling the former Israeli PM, Naftali Bennett, an appeaser?

Think before answering!

And learn how to discuss tough subjects respectfully.

And we all know the sad state of affairs that has resulted from that less than stellar advice - Ukraine now in a decidedly weaker negotiating position with Russia having made slow but sure incremental advances on the ground over the course of the last two and a half years of death and destruction inside Ukraine.

Quite the opposite. It’s Russia that’s negotiating from a position of weakness. Let’s remember that Russia has traded all of the costs of war for these results:

Russia has spent enormous amounts of treasure and blood for a stalemate. The non-American West is united like never before and now features new members Finland and Sweden. Russia is the most sanctioned regime in human history, and they’re getting nothing but tighter. Inflation in Russia is officially 9.4% but a lot of staples have gotten considerably more expensive. The Russian prime rate is 21%. The Ruble has fallen to a penny. Westerners ran all those Siberian resource extraction operations because neither the Russians nor the Chinese know how. And their parts and expertise are gone and they’re not coming back. The Ukrainians have already taken out a seventh of Russia’s oil refineries and the “shadow fleet” has seen four sinkings to date. And how about that Black Sea Fleet? Russian crude will come off the market because they cannot store what they cannot export. When the wells and pipelines stop flowing they’ll freeze. Which means redrilling and rebuilding everything. That least happened in the 1990s and it took them thirty years to do this.

While Chamberlain understood, as I do, that it would have been difficult for the Sudetenland to accept all that his mediation effort entailed, it was the only way to bring hostilities on the ground to a quick end and begin tough negotiations having just rewarded Hitler’s aggression.This became known in history as appeasement.

There, I fixed it for you. ;D

Now kindly engage with my five questions above. Before I think of any more tough ones for you.

You both appear to equate appeasement with diplomatic opportunity to avoid/end a stupid, long war.

Oh, you've got to be freaking kidding me! *laughs*

Back in March of 2022, it was none other than the Israeli PM, Naftali Bennett - the Great Appeaser...NOT - who tried to mediate an early end to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

How does one negotiate an "early end" to an invasion that had already been taking place for an extended number of years? Putin threatened to escalate if his terms were not met. Hold up. We've been through this exercise multiple times.

If you seriously think MtnCaddy or I don't know the history here, you're worse off than I thought.

The Biden administration, however, chose to ignore Israeli mediation efforts and advised Zelensky to stay the course.

That's oversimplified bullshit. Obviously, we all know you blame Biden, and for all kinds of glaringly obvious reasons, it's ridiculous. Despite the obvious facts regarding the history of the area, you still seem to have faith in Vladimir Putin... wherein he merits NONE.

As far as Trump, he's simply repeating some of the same Kremlin talking points you've posted on this public forum and blaming Zelensky and/or Biden for the war... you know, the war he claims wouldn't have happened if he was POTUS but that had obviously been going on every single day while he was actually the President, and Trump doesn't sound altogether too far off from some of the same things you've posted yourself on this public forum.

Please look up the definition of appeasement. It's exactly what you advocated multiple times on this public forum.

As many as you think you can muster. Indeed, bring them on.

As I have stated before, you cannot throw a rock into the archives of 2022 without hitting one of your Kremlin talking points and/or statements calling for appeasement.

Just remember that your constant accusations of appeasement ring hollow to anyone who understands the concept...

Is that the problem here? It seems you simply do not understand the concept of appeasement.

... and who recognizes the reality of what has unfolded in Ukraine as this stupid war has dragged on for three years.

Patently false. "This stupid war" was escalated by the aggression of Vladimir Putin and Russia after having already taken place for years prior. However, the length of the war has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you repeatedly called for appeasement: You did. It's public record.

Aaand, I missed that this was merely sixteen days into the escalation. No wonder I was so steamed at that juncture.

Is that not the literal definition of "appeasement"?
Rhetorical question.

How many of your multiple calls for appeasement would you like repeated?

As many as you think you can muster. Indeed, bring them on.

Just remember that your constant accusations of appeasement ring hollow to anyone who understands the concept and who recognizes the reality of what has unfolded in Ukraine as this stupid war has dragged on for three years.

You both appear to equate appeasement with diplomatic opportunity to avoid/end a stupid, long war.

Back in March of 2022, it was none other than the Israeli PM, Naftali Bennett - the Great Appeaser...NOT - who tried to mediate an early end to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

At that time, Ukraine was in a relatively strong negotiating position, having successfully and spectacularly stopped the Russian advance on Kyiv and handed Putin a great strategic loss as his delusions of occupying the whole of Ukraine quickly evaporated.

While Naftali understood, as I do, that it would have been difficult for Ukraine to accept all that his mediation effort entailed, it was the only way to bring hostilities on the ground to a quick end and begin tough negotiations.

The Biden administration, however, chose to ignore Israeli mediation efforts and advised Zelensky to stay the course. And we all know the sad state of affairs that has resulted from that less than stellar advice - Ukraine now in a decidedly weaker negotiating position with Russia having made slow but sure incremental advances on the ground over the course of the last two and a half years of death and destruction inside Ukraine.

And, today, under the Trump administration, things just got worse for Zelensky. Time for him and European leaders to show more strength and leadership and no small amount of push-back against the power play Trump is making. I hope that Ukraine has learned an important lesson about how its self-interest doesn't always align with that of the US.

Hosanna, Queen of Snark!
Hosanna in the Highest!

Why don't you throw some of that public record back at me? Quote me, in other words.

See above.

You used to be quite good at that.

I never stopped being quite good at that.

But, you can't produce something in the public record that I have never said.

Being that you obviously called for appeasement multiple times, I can produce a plethora of you doing it.

How does that old saying go ... oh, right ... Put up or shut up!

How many of your multiple calls for appeasement would you like repeated?

Elizabeth Miller wrote:

MtnCaddy,

Zelensky can fortify Ukraine's independence but will have to pay a heavy price, the sources said. Assumptions are that he will be forced to give up the contested Donbas region, officially recognize the pro-Russian dissidents in Ukraine, pledge that Ukraine will not join NATO, shrink his army and declare neutrality. If he declines the proposal, the outcome may be terrible: thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainians will die and there is a high probability that his country will completely lose its independence.

It seems the Ukrainian leader has a critical choice to make - Zelensky can be a martyr or a real leader.

The US and its NATO allies have a role to play here, too. They can demand he accept the Russian offer.

That would be acknowledging the actual reality on the ground before the war and the only way out of it now.

THAT is the definition of common sense.

[ Permalink ] [ Wednesday, March 9th, 2022 at 08:27 ]

https://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/03/08/pain-at-the-pump-popular-for-now/#comment-186850

*

Foreign policy of pacifying Russia through negotiation in order to prevent them attacking Ukraine is the literal definition of appeasement.

2- what would YOU have done that would have prevented Putin’s escalation of his 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

3- in 2007 Putin lamented the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991 and made it clear he wanted to correct this. So he invaded Georgia, Kazakhstan, Chechnya twice and others. He told you what he wanted to do and then did so over and over. So what should Biden have done that would have stopped him in 2022?

4- how would taking NATO membership off the table have been anything other than, Ukraine? Sure, we don’t care so help yourself!

The previous name calling was not cool, and I’ll endeavor to knock it the fuck off. Please understand that it came purely out of frustration that you duck answering questions like these.

Here’s one more:

5- how do view Putin expanding his empire as any different than centuries of previous Czars expanded their empires?

That is NOT a great way to entice me into engagement here with you.

THE rest of us have been following you on this matter for (checks watch) three years ago and I’m unwilling to plow through all that to refresh your memory. So let’s discuss something I don’t have to hunt for,

Liz
47

Of course, Biden remains completely wedded to the silly notion that it is in Ukraine's best interests to apply for NATO membership, so there's that. :(

So tell us why you believe this. C’mon, don’t pull a Cho’mo and bail on the subject at the first hint of eminent embarrassment. I’ll work with you but please explain why you believe this. Oh, and they ARE Russian talking points.