NATO expansion didn't cause this war, and it won't have any meaningful part in the peace, either. The end result, and consequently what is 'acceptable' to Russia, is effectively whatever Russia can enforce. Their intent was to enforce a state of affairs where Ukraine ceased to exist, which we know because Russia continually stated their intent. The less able Russia is to enforce a peace favourable to them, the more favourable the peace will be to Ukraine. And right now, Ukraine is more in a position to dictate terms than Russia.
The negotiated settlement acceptable to both sides no longer involves Russia controlling Kupyansk, apparently: That's one of the most important junctions in the country, and it fell with very little resistance. Maybe the Ukrainians should keep going, so that the negotiated settlement acceptable to both sides will include less and less (and ideally almost none) of their territory.
So Ukraine, encouraged by the west, finds herself in a position to dictate terms to Russia, as the victorious allies were in a position to dictate terms to Germany at Versailles. The problem being, that when the victor in war dictates terms without any concessions to the vanquished, no lasting peace is likely to endure; rather, conditions are created for future conflict. Still, let’s hope I’m wrong. Let’s hope a victorious Ukraine can reach an accommodation with her neighbour that recognises some of Russia’s concerns.
It's their ****ing country. I'm absolutely floored that you think that giving Russia a part of Ukraine will make them want less of Ukraine. Russia has had large parts of Ukraine for eight years and that didn't at all diminish their desire to have more of Ukraine: it increased it, because they took it rather easily. So they invaded the rest of the country, and now you're fretting that failing to give them additional territory will make them more belligerent?
I wish I could say I was absolutely floored that you think a thousand years of tangled history between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe, can be understood and resolved with reference only to the current century. But frankly I’m not. As an American, perhaps you don’t understand how fluid and mutable European borders have always been, and how sticking a flag in this or that region and declaring it “our ****ing country” has never led to anything but conflict.
I'm not an American, you silly man. Given that you seem to have mistaken Ukraine for Russia, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that you've mistaken Canada for the United States. Thanks for the history lessons (don't know why I got those degrees when there are internet forums to provide such sage advice), but you might need a bit of a lesson in geography yourself. Be happy to help.
At least we seem to be moving away from Ian’s idea of restoring the original Soviet Union as the best/only solution…
I am a republican. Monarchy is a symbol of class division to me. Elizabeth was a good person who lived a fantastic life and had incredible opportunities. There is no sadness in a full life lived.
Canada is a political entity on the continent of North America, is it not? So of course you’re American. Perhaps you should buy yourself one of those Atlases where political and geographical maps are placed side by side. And while you’re at it, take a look at an atlas of world history - oh, but you won’t need to because you have degrees in history. From which you don’t appear to have learned very much.
You and Archers are two of the most insightful contributors to this forum, there are others of course, but I always impressed with what you both say. In this difference of opinion I invariably waver between agreeing with each of you as each post comes in. So well done you two, keep it up but please don't be disrespectful.
You're part of an cluster of islands off the coast of Europe, and as the majority of that landmass is not actually English, I'm going to assume that you must be Irish. Dia duit! You pleased to see Kerry back on top in the GAA?
Resistance to imperial forces has generally taken the form of bleeding their morale and will to continue dry. The US in Vietnam and Iraq. The Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Spain all over the damned place in the 19th century. Here we're seeing an imperial power lose because they're straight-up getting routed. Rejoice. That's a good thing. Subjugating your neighbours is a bad thing even if you aren't the United States (it's also bad if you are the United States, obviously).
May I say from seeing both @Schad and @Archers Road posts that I really enjoy, I do think that maybe Archers was being a bit mischievous calling Schad American. It reminded me of when I was in an important meeting recently and I had a colleague from the US was asking where another colleague, Miguel, came from and he said Portugal. The US guy was a bit confused and I said to annoy Miguel I said "Oh you know, it's like being Spanish"
Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too (But also, no World Cup, John.)
Hmm…I rather suspect he plainly got it wrong, then made a pretty poor show of trying to cover the tracks. That’s how it reads to me!
