Can we stick to the topic which is - Vlad annihilating a sovereign nation which he land grabbed through sham referendums and his ultimate goal to save the world from Nazis (again)?
These posters plus me, probably account for 95% of the posts on this thread, since the departure of Nan. I think they're all men. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
Jamie Ross drummerboy nohero PVW tjohn Dave Schmidt Dave Ross jaytee Steve
Some people read more than comment, though. Always a good general principle that the people one notices aren't the only people who count. Online and off.
BTW, clarification on what you think should happen if Russia doesn't agree to stop fighting?
"Red meat" is thrown to commenters, not to lurkers.
On what to do if the US/NATO/Ukraine accept the China proposal but Russia doesn't accept Point 3 (cease-fire) -- I'll opine on the second hypothetical after the first hypothetical comes true.
Can we stick to the topic which is - Vlad annihilating a sovereign nation which he land grabbed through sham referendums and his ultimate goal to save the world from Nazis (again)?
Speaking of Nazis, this stuff keeps happening, this time with NATO:
"Red meat" is thrown to commenters, not to lurkers.
On what to do if the US/NATO/Ukraine accept the China proposal but Russia doesn't accept Point 3 (cease-fire) -- I'll opine on the second hypothetical after the first hypothetical comes true.
Well it kind of goes to your whole position. You claim you favor peace. I've countered that this is false, because you've been arguing that Ukraine should stop fighting, support actions to try to make this happen, but have propose no such actions to likewise bring pressure on Russia and, as far as I can see, believe Ukraine should stop fighting regardless of whether Russia does. Further, I've seen you make no arguments for providing Ukraine with support against renewed Russia aggression even if a cease fire comes about.
This, as I've pointed out, makes your position one of Ukrainian surrender, not peace.
If I'm wrong here, it's easy enough for you to correct me. So far you've demurred, but if you are going to keep on claiming you favor peace, I'm going to keep on pressing you on this.
Putin’s plan is similar to Pablo’s plan…trade peace in Ukraine for concessions to Putin. All this whataboutism is something right out of Trumpenstein’s playbook.
"Red meat" is thrown to commenters, not to lurkers.
On what to do if the US/NATO/Ukraine accept the China proposal but Russia doesn't accept Point 3 (cease-fire) -- I'll opine on the second hypothetical after the first hypothetical comes true.
Well it kind of goes to your whole position. You claim you favor peace. I've countered that this is false, because you've been arguing that Ukraine should stop fighting, support actions to try to make this happen, but have propose no such actions to likewise bring pressure on Russia and, as far as I can see, believe Ukraine should stop fighting regardless of whether Russia does. Further, I've seen you make no arguments for providing Ukraine with support against renewed Russia aggression even if a cease fire comes about.
This, as I've pointed out, makes your position one of Ukrainian surrender, not peace.
If I'm wrong here, though, it's easy enough for you to correct me. So far you've demurred. but if you are going to keep on claiming you favor peace, I'm going to keep on pressing you on this.
I'm calling for my government and Ukraine's to accept the Chinese proposal -- in full -- as the best hope for Ukraine. That puts pressure on Russia -- to accept Ukrainian sovereignty -- and the US/NATO/Ukraine -- to accept neutrality for Ukraine and a new structure of security in Europe that removes threats to Russia (e.g. ABM missile sites that could be adapted to nuclear missiles which are a real threat to Russia since the US quit the INF Treaty).
The reason you don't "understand" my position is because you refuse to acknowledge the aggressive history and posture of NATO, which enables you to deny that (a) Russia is under any threat by NATO enlargement and deployments (b) that the Maidan coup was a US-supported security threat to Russia that triggered its takeover of Crimea and (c) that Ukraine and the West blocked the Minsk agreement (now admitted by Merkel and Hollande) as well as a peace deal after the invasion in April 2022.
These denials enable you to embrace the simple-minded argument that Russia is solely responsible for the invasion as well as the continuation of the war and therefore the only solution is Russian withdrawal, period. And thus, to achieve peace, there is no need for any compromises or changes in behavior by the US/NATO/Ukraine. Therefore, the only solution is military defeat of Russia.
Unfortunately, this approach is a prescription for disaster for Ukraine, and if things go really wrong, a disaster for humanity.
The above points and arguments are all based on analyses by leading Western experts in military affairs and diplomacy who oppose US/NATO/Ukraine policy. I'll "keep pressing you" to listen to them, for instance former US ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock:
The only way the Chinese proposal is the best hope for Ukraine is if Russia goes along with item number one in the proposal… can’t miss it.. it’s right up there on the top. Everything else is irrelevant and unnecessary.
The only way the Chinese proposal is the best hope for Ukraine is if Russia goes along with item number one in the proposal… can’t miss it.. it’s right up there on the top. Everything else is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Except sovereignty according to Vlad is that Ukraine has to leave Russia's newly acquired land grabs, Once we figure out who the rightly owner of these territories is - we'll be one step closer to peace.
Right now - both are trying to fight the enemy out of their personal property.
Paul feels Russia has properly bullied their way into the land and it should be ceded to them to stop the bloodshed.
I'm calling for my government and Ukraine's to accept the Chinese proposal -- in full -- as the best hope for Ukraine. That puts pressure on Russia -- to accept Ukrainian sovereignty -- and the US/NATO/Ukraine -- to accept neutrality for Ukraine and a new structure of security in Europe that removes threats to Russia (e.g. ABM missile sites that could be adapted to nuclear missiles which are a real threat to Russia since the US quit the INF Treaty).
How does it put pressure on Russia? There's no calls here for any action against Russia, by the US or China. There's no calls here for action against China to encourage action against Russia. All you're proposing is unilateral Ukrainian surrender. And in the event this doesn't magically convince Russia to stop fighting (and why would it?), you've further been arguing for ending military support to Ukraine. You're not advocating peace, you're advocating Russian victory.
Paul - what did Vlad say prior to the massive invasion which gave you faith in him that he wouldn't invade?
What made you so sure a full scale invasion wasn't going to happen?
Just trying to figure out where and what he has said to make you think he's a rational actor in his words.
In part, because that's what Zelensky said.
More likely, because of listening to Putin the day before -
Text of Putin press conference: Minsk is dead because Ukraine leaders rejected it and the West failed to "force" them to accept it. Voices hope that dispute over govt-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk will be resolved through negotiations https://t.co/da0vPHlmt3pic.twitter.com/63R3QdWKqr
A ceasefire would require some security guarantees. That mean the credible threat of military force to enforce agreements. Paul doesn't want Ukraine to have that capability. He's not arguing for the US to become directly involved in Ukraine and provide that. He's not arguing for China to become directly involved and provide that. So how does he think China's -- or anyone else's -- peace proposal will come to pass? The situation Paul is arguing for -- where the only military force capable of sustained action is Russia's -- is clearly NOT one where Ukrainian sovereignty is respected.
I like how Paul keeps bringing up Minsk. Remember, this concerned fighting happening in Ukraine, not Russia, and which was only happening because of Russian direct and indirect military aggression against Ukraine. How can fighting in territory that does not belong to Russia in any way justify a full scale Russian invasion? It can't, unless one believes Russia has some kind of legitimate claim to that territory. And if one believes that, one clearly can't claim to care about Ukrainian sovereignty.
Similarly regarding the Revolution of Dignity. Kyiv is a city in Ukraine, not Russia. There's not plausible way events in Kyiv can provide justification for Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory unless one believes Russia has some legitimate claim to that territory.
And in the broader context, when Paul brings up NATO expansion, we're talking about countries that are NOT Russia, that freely chose to join NATO -- that, in fact, didn't merely choose this, but insisted upon it, overcoming resistance from major NATO countries (including the United States!) to do so. Citing this as justification for Russian aggression against Ukraine makes no sense unless one believes Russia has some sort of claim over countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
These denials enable you to embrace the simple-minded argument that Russia is solely responsible for the invasion as well as the continuation of the war and therefore the only solution is Russian withdrawal, period. And thus, to achieve peace, there is no need for any compromises or changes in behavior by the US/NATO/Ukraine. Therefore, the only solution is military defeat of Russia.
Before Russia invaded, Ukraine was not invading Russia. Ukraine was not threatening to invade Russia.
The solution is for Russia to stop invading Ukraine, to "un-invade". That's only the beginning, as some type of long-term security arrangement is still needed (so Ukraine doesn't have to fear being turned into another Belarus for Russia). If China wants to help with that, why not?
I like how Paul keeps bringing up Minsk. Remember, this concerned fighting happening in Ukraine, not Russia, and which was only happening because of Russian direct and indirect military aggression against Ukraine. How can fighting in territory that does not belong to Russia in any way justify a full scale Russian invasion? It can't, unless one believes Russia has some kind of legitimate claim to that territory. And if one believes that, one clearly can't claim to care about Ukrainian sovereignty.
Similarly regarding the Revolution of Dignity. Kyiv is a city in Ukraine, not Russia. There's not plausible way events in Kyiv can provide justification for Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory unless one believes Russia has some legitimate claim to that territory.
And in the broader context, when Paul brings up NATO expansion, we're talking about countries that are NOT Russia, that freely chose to join NATO -- that, in fact, didn't merely choose this, but insisted upon it, overcoming resistance from major NATO countries (including the United States!) to do so. Citing this as justification for Russian aggression against Ukraine makes no sense unless one believes Russia has some sort of claim over countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
You imply that the Minsk compromise that would have made the Donbas partially autonomous but remain in Ukraine plus NATO officially committing to not enlarge into Ukraine would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year. And this was possible before the war and in March-April 2022 when a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK.
Ukrainian court puts an Orthodox leader under house arrest
By KARL RITTER and ELENA BECATOROS yesterday
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Kyiv court ordered a leading priest to be put under house arrest Saturday after Ukraine’s top security agency said he was suspected of justifying Russian aggression, a criminal offense. It was the latest move in a bitter dispute over a famed Orthodox monastery.
Metropolitan Pavel is the abbot of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery, Ukraine’s most revered Orthodox site. He has denied the charges and resisted the authorities’ order to vacate the complex.
In a court hearing earlier in the day, the metropolitan said the claim by the Security Service of Ukraine, known as the SBU, that he condoned Russia’s invasion was politically driven and that he had “never been on the side of aggression.”
After the court’s ruling, a monitoring bracelet was placed around his ankle, despite his objections that he has diabetes and should not wear it. The house arrest was to last two months.
“I am accepting this,” he said shortly before the bracelet was attached. “Christ was crucified on the cross, so why shouldn’t I accept this?”
Earlier in the week, he cursed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, threatening him with damnation.
The monks in the monastery belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has been accused of having links to Russia. The dispute surrounding the property, also known as the Monastery of the Caves, is part of a wider religious conflict that has unfolded in parallel with the war.
You keep saying that the USA and the UK sabotaged the agreement. Have you ever stopped parroting the misinformation that you get from YouTube, and think for a minute that the Ukrainian people voted to reject Putin’s plans to take over their nation and culture? These people willingly gave up their nuclear arsenal to make peace, but they were lied to and tricked into believing that Putin and the Russians were being sincere. You are nothing more than a Russian stooge. It’s offensive to peaceful people that you claim to be an activist for peace, while spreading misinformation and propaganda. You’re just ridiculous.
You imply that the Minsk compromise that would have made the Donbas partially autonomous but remain in Ukraine plus NATO officially committing to not enlarge into Ukraine would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year. And this was possible before the war and in March-April 2022 when a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
"You imply that the Minsk compromise (surrendering to Russia's demands) ... would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year (full scale invasion)."
No, I think he's saying that refusing Russian demands as a condition to stop its aggression in the Donbass aren't "justification" for the full-scale invasion.
You'd blame the store owner who refuses to pay protection money, for the firebombing that resulted.
You imply that the Minsk compromise that would have made the Donbas partially autonomous but remain in Ukraine plus NATO officially committing to not enlarge into Ukraine would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year. And this was possible before the war and in March-April 2022 when a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
No, we all shouldn't "agree to disagree" about the claim that "a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK" because that's not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Ukrainian court puts an Orthodox leader under house arrest
By KARL RITTER and ELENA BECATOROS yesterday
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Kyiv court ordered a leading priest to be put under house arrest Saturday after Ukraine’s top security agency said he was suspected of justifying Russian aggression, a criminal offense. It was the latest move in a bitter dispute over a famed Orthodox monastery.
Metropolitan Pavel is the abbot of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery, Ukraine’s most revered Orthodox site. He has denied the charges and resisted the authorities’ order to vacate the complex.
In a court hearing earlier in the day, the metropolitan said the claim by the Security Service of Ukraine, known as the SBU, that he condoned Russia’s invasion was politically driven and that he had “never been on the side of aggression.”
After the court’s ruling, a monitoring bracelet was placed around his ankle, despite his objections that he has diabetes and should not wear it. The house arrest was to last two months.
“I am accepting this,” he said shortly before the bracelet was attached. “Christ was crucified on the cross, so why shouldn’t I accept this?”
Earlier in the week, he cursed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, threatening him with damnation.
The monks in the monastery belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has been accused of having links to Russia. The dispute surrounding the property, also known as the Monastery of the Caves, is part of a wider religious conflict that has unfolded in parallel with the war.
Click to Read More
Ukrainian court puts an Orthodox leader under house arrest
By KARL RITTER and ELENA BECATOROS yesterday
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Kyiv court ordered a leading priest to be put under house arrest Saturday after Ukraine’s top security agency said he was suspected of justifying Russian aggression, a criminal offense. It was the latest move in a bitter dispute over a famed Orthodox monastery.
Metropolitan Pavel is the abbot of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery, Ukraine’s most revered Orthodox site. He has denied the charges and resisted the authorities’ order to vacate the complex.
In a court hearing earlier in the day, the metropolitan said the claim by the Security Service of Ukraine, known as the SBU, that he condoned Russia’s invasion was politically driven and that he had “never been on the side of aggression.”
After the court’s ruling, a monitoring bracelet was placed around his ankle, despite his objections that he has diabetes and should not wear it. The house arrest was to last two months.
“I am accepting this,” he said shortly before the bracelet was attached. “Christ was crucified on the cross, so why shouldn’t I accept this?”
Earlier in the week, he cursed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, threatening him with damnation.
The monks in the monastery belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has been accused of having links to Russia. The dispute surrounding the property, also known as the Monastery of the Caves, is part of a wider religious conflict that has unfolded in parallel with the war.
Paul is at his worst when he discusses topics that involve religion, and his "Revolution of Dignity update" label for this story is the latest example.
I like how Paul keeps bringing up Minsk. Remember, this concerned fighting happening in Ukraine, not Russia, and which was only happening because of Russian direct and indirect military aggression against Ukraine. How can fighting in territory that does not belong to Russia in any way justify a full scale Russian invasion? It can't, unless one believes Russia has some kind of legitimate claim to that territory. And if one believes that, one clearly can't claim to care about Ukrainian sovereignty.
Similarly regarding the Revolution of Dignity. Kyiv is a city in Ukraine, not Russia. There's not plausible way events in Kyiv can provide justification for Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory unless one believes Russia has some legitimate claim to that territory.
And in the broader context, when Paul brings up NATO expansion, we're talking about countries that are NOT Russia, that freely chose to join NATO -- that, in fact, didn't merely choose this, but insisted upon it, overcoming resistance from major NATO countries (including the United States!) to do so. Citing this as justification for Russian aggression against Ukraine makes no sense unless one believes Russia has some sort of claim over countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
You imply that the Minsk compromise that would have made the Donbas partially autonomous but remain in Ukraine plus NATO officially committing to not enlarge into Ukraine would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year. And this was possible before the war and in March-April 2022 when a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK.
You keep on putting forth a fantasy version of Putin at odds with reality. As I pointed out in the passage you are quoting, to accept Russia's claim that its invasion is tied to the Minsk agreement is to accept the premise that Russia has some legitimate claim to Ukrainian territory. How can an agreement concerning fighting happening in Ukraine have anything to do with whether Russia invades? It can't -- unless Russia believes that Ukrainian territory is something it has some sort of claim over.
And if one accepts this point of view -- which one must, if one is to argue that Minsk was the key to preventing the full scale invasion -- then one is necessarily rejecting Ukrainian sovereignty. It also makes one look rather naive, as one finds oneself arguing 1) that Russia has legitimate claims over Ukraine and 2) in the same breath, that if only Russia got just this one thing they would have been satisfied. I mean, point 1 completely undermines point 2.
I mean, let's imagine an alternate timeline where Minsk actually worked out. Would Russia have been satisfied? Clearly, only if that resulted in Ukraine's turn to Europe being reversed and Ukraine being brought back under Russian suzerainty. If that didn't happen, then Russia would have moved on to further acts of aggression, perhaps even an invasion, and you'd be here parroting whatever justifications the Kremlin was putting out to explain why this was still all the fault of the U.S. (I almost wrote you'd be blaming Ukraine, but there's no reason to believe that in this alternate timeline you'd grant Ukraine any more agency than you do in in this one).
And to return again to the broader view I concluded on the my previous post, it's clear that the eastern European countries that demanded NATO membership were absolutely right to do so. Because if they hadn't, what's happening in Ukraine would be happening to them. There's be some Russian provocations and aggressions, they would push back, Russia would then take that as justification for further aggression against them, and you'd be here explaining to us why it really would be better for the people of Poland or Latvia to stop fighting and how they're all just American puppets.
I like how Paul keeps bringing up Minsk. Remember, this concerned fighting happening in Ukraine, not Russia, and which was only happening because of Russian direct and indirect military aggression against Ukraine. How can fighting in territory that does not belong to Russia in any way justify a full scale Russian invasion? It can't, unless one believes Russia has some kind of legitimate claim to that territory. And if one believes that, one clearly can't claim to care about Ukrainian sovereignty.
Similarly regarding the Revolution of Dignity. Kyiv is a city in Ukraine, not Russia. There's not plausible way events in Kyiv can provide justification for Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory unless one believes Russia has some legitimate claim to that territory.
And in the broader context, when Paul brings up NATO expansion, we're talking about countries that are NOT Russia, that freely chose to join NATO -- that, in fact, didn't merely choose this, but insisted upon it, overcoming resistance from major NATO countries (including the United States!) to do so. Citing this as justification for Russian aggression against Ukraine makes no sense unless one believes Russia has some sort of claim over countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
You imply that the Minsk compromise that would have made the Donbas partially autonomous but remain in Ukraine plus NATO officially committing to not enlarge into Ukraine would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year. And this was possible before the war and in March-April 2022 when a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK.
You keep on putting forth a fantasy version of Putin at odds with reality. As I pointed out in the passage you are quoting, to accept Russia's claim that its invasion is tied to the Minsk agreement is to accept the premise that Russia has some legitimate claim to Ukrainian territory. How can an agreement concerning fighting happening in Ukraine have anything to do with whether Russia invades? It can't -- unless Russia believes that Ukrainian territory is something it has some sort of claim over.
And if one accepts this point of view -- which one must, if one is to argue that Minsk was the key to preventing the full scale invasion -- then one is necessarily rejecting Ukrainian sovereignty. It also makes one look rather naive, as one finds oneself arguing 1) that Russia has legitimate claims over Ukraine and 2) in the same breath, that if only Russia got just this one thing they would have been satisfied. I mean, point 1 completely undermines point 2.
I mean, let's imagine an alternate timeline where Minsk actually worked out. Would Russia have been satisfied? Clearly, only if that resulted in Ukraine's turn to Europe being reversed and Ukraine being brought back under Russian suzerainty. If that didn't happen, then Russia would have moved on to further acts of aggression, perhaps even an invasion, and you'd be here parroting whatever justifications the Kremlin was putting out to explain why this was still all the fault of the U.S. (I almost wrote you'd be blaming Ukraine, but there's no reason to believe that in this alternate timeline you'd grant Ukraine any more agency than you do in in this one).
And to return again to the broader view I concluded on the my previous post, it's clear that the eastern European countries that demanded NATO membership were absolutely right to do so. Because if they hadn't, what's happening in Ukraine would be happening to them. There's be some Russian provocations and aggressions, they would push back, Russia would then take that as justification for further aggression against them, and you'd be here explaining to us why it really would be better for the people of Poland or Latvia to stop fighting and how they're all just American puppets.
The following excerpt by former US ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock addresses many of your arguments, especially your denial that Russia has a legitimate claim to what was occurring on its border -- including the US-supported coup that installed an pro-NATO, anti-Russian regime, the civil war triggered by the coup and attacks, physical and cultural, against the predominant Russian-speaking population, as well as the ongoing integration of Ukraine's military with NATO as part of US official support for Ukraine membership in NATO.
This piece does not take into account Russia's annexation of the four regions, and should be read in conjunction with the previous article by Matlock that I linked to, which does.
Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided Posted on November 5, 2022 by Jack Matlock
Excerpts
[ . . . ]
Interference by the United States and its NATO allies in Ukraine’s civil struggle has exacerbated the crisis within Ukraine, undermined the possibility of bringing the two easternmost provinces back under Kyiv’s control, and raised the specter of possible conflict between nuclear-armed powers. Furthermore, in denying that Russia has a “right” to oppose extension of a hostile military alliance to its national borders, the United States ignores its own history of declaring and enforcing for two centuries a sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere.
[ . . . ]
The Ukrainian revolution of 2014 started with protests over President Yanukovich’s decision not to sign an agreement with the European Union. The United States and the EU openly supported the demonstrators and spoke of detaching Ukraine from what one might call the Russian (past Soviet) security sphere and attaching it to the West through EU and NATO membership. Never mind that Ukraine was unable at that time to meet the normal requirements for either EU or NATO membership. Violence started, first in the Ukrainian nationalist West, with irregular militias taking over the local offices headed by Yanukovich appointees.
On February 20, 2014, demonstrations in Kyiv, which up to then had been largely peaceful, turned violent even though a compromise agreement had been reached to hold early elections. Many demonstrators were shot by sniper fire and President Yanukovich fled the country. Demonstration leaders claimed that the government’s security force, the Berkut, was responsible for initiating the shooting, but subsequent trials failed to substantiate this. In fact, most of the sniper fire came from buildings controlled by the demonstrators.
The United States and most Western countries immediately recognized the successor government, but Russia and many Russian-speaking Ukrainians considered Yanukovich’s ouster the result of an illegal coup d’etat. A rebellion occurred in the Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk and Russia supported the rebels with military equipment and irregular forces.
In Crimea, local leaders declared independence and requested annexation by Russia. A referendum was conducted under the watchful eye of “little green men” infiltrated from Russia. There was no resistance by Ukrainian military or police forces, and Russia officially annexed the peninsula when the referendum resulted in an overwhelming pro-Russian vote. There was no fighting and no casualties in Crimea.
In February 2015 an agreement was reached (“Minsk agreement”) to bring the Donbas back under Kiev’s control by allowing a degree of autonomy, including election of local officials, and amnesty for the secessionists. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian legislature (Verkhovna Rada) has refused to amend the constitution to provide for a federal system or to proclaim an amnesty for the secessionists.
Separate sets of U.S. and EU economic sanctions against Russia have been declared in respect to the Crimea and the Donbas, but most have seemed to stimulate hostile emotions rather than encourage solution of the problems. What needs to be understood is that Russia perceives these issues as matters of vital national security.
Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adjacent to its borders, as any other country would be and the United States always has been. It has signaled repeatedly that it will stop at nothing to prevent NATO membership for Ukraine. Nevertheless, eventual Ukrainian membership in NATO has been an avowed objective U.S. and NATO policy since the Bush-Cheney administration. This makes absolutely no sense. It is also dangerous to confront a nuclear-armed power with military threats on its border.
When I hear comments now such as, “Russia has no right to claim a ‘sphere of influence,’” I am puzzled. It is not a question of legal “rights,” but of probable consequences. It is as if someone announces, “We never passed a law of gravity so we can ignore it.” No one is saying that Ukraine does not have a “right” to apply for NATO membership. Of course it does. The question is whether the members of the alliance would serve their own interest if they agreed. In fact they would assume a very dangerous liability.
I point this out as a veteran of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. At that time I was assigned to the American embassy in Moscow and it fell my lot to translate some of Khrushchev’s messages to President John Kennedy. Why is it relevant? Just this: in terms of international law, the Soviet Union had a “right” to place nuclear weapons on Cuba when the Cuban government requested them, the more so since the United States had deployed nuclear missiles of comparable range that could strike the USSR from Turkey. But it was an exceedingly dangerous move since the United States had total military dominance of the Caribbean and under no circumstances would tolerate the deployment of nuclear missiles in its backyard. Fortunately for both countries and the rest of the world, Kennedy and Khrushchev were able to defuse the situation. Only later did we learn how close we came to a nuclear exchange.
[ . . . ]
One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same). When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed.
Furthermore, Russians would argue that the U.S. is interested in territorial integrity only when its interests are served. American governments have a record of ignoring it when convenient, as when it and its NATO allies violated Serbian territorial integrity by creating and then recognizing an independent Kosovo. Also, the United Sates violated the principle when it supported the separation of South Sudan from Sudan, Eritrea from Ethiopia, and East Timor from Indonesia.
Ukrainian court puts an Orthodox leader under house arrest
By KARL RITTER and ELENA BECATOROS yesterday
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Kyiv court ordered a leading priest to be put under house arrest Saturday after Ukraine’s top security agency said he was suspected of justifying Russian aggression, a criminal offense. It was the latest move in a bitter dispute over a famed Orthodox monastery.
Metropolitan Pavel is the abbot of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery, Ukraine’s most revered Orthodox site. He has denied the charges and resisted the authorities’ order to vacate the complex.
In a court hearing earlier in the day, the metropolitan said the claim by the Security Service of Ukraine, known as the SBU, that he condoned Russia’s invasion was politically driven and that he had “never been on the side of aggression.”
After the court’s ruling, a monitoring bracelet was placed around his ankle, despite his objections that he has diabetes and should not wear it. The house arrest was to last two months.
“I am accepting this,” he said shortly before the bracelet was attached. “Christ was crucified on the cross, so why shouldn’t I accept this?”
Earlier in the week, he cursed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, threatening him with damnation.
The monks in the monastery belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has been accused of having links to Russia. The dispute surrounding the property, also known as the Monastery of the Caves, is part of a wider religious conflict that has unfolded in parallel with the war.
Click to Read More
Ukrainian court puts an Orthodox leader under house arrest
By KARL RITTER and ELENA BECATOROS yesterday
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Kyiv court ordered a leading priest to be put under house arrest Saturday after Ukraine’s top security agency said he was suspected of justifying Russian aggression, a criminal offense. It was the latest move in a bitter dispute over a famed Orthodox monastery.
Metropolitan Pavel is the abbot of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery, Ukraine’s most revered Orthodox site. He has denied the charges and resisted the authorities’ order to vacate the complex.
In a court hearing earlier in the day, the metropolitan said the claim by the Security Service of Ukraine, known as the SBU, that he condoned Russia’s invasion was politically driven and that he had “never been on the side of aggression.”
After the court’s ruling, a monitoring bracelet was placed around his ankle, despite his objections that he has diabetes and should not wear it. The house arrest was to last two months.
“I am accepting this,” he said shortly before the bracelet was attached. “Christ was crucified on the cross, so why shouldn’t I accept this?”
Earlier in the week, he cursed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, threatening him with damnation.
The monks in the monastery belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has been accused of having links to Russia. The dispute surrounding the property, also known as the Monastery of the Caves, is part of a wider religious conflict that has unfolded in parallel with the war.
Paul is at his worst when he discusses topics that involve religion, and his "Revolution of Dignity update" label for this story is the latest example.
Presumably this is a reference to my posting of Pope Francis's view that Russia's invasion of Ukraine may have been provoked by NATO "barking at Russia's gate" and his view that there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in the conflict.
On the matter of "democrat" Zelensky's attempts to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, I once again invoke the Pope's wisdom:
You imply that the Minsk compromise that would have made the Donbas partially autonomous but remain in Ukraine plus NATO officially committing to not enlarge into Ukraine would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year. And this was possible before the war and in March-April 2022 when a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
No, we all shouldn't "agree to disagree" about the claim that "a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK" because that's not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Not the first time this has been pointed out.
Here's the evidence that the US and UK sabotaged the tentative peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia in April 2022, that's been posted here before:
US security insiders Fiona Hill and Angela Stent report a tentative agreement was reached:
According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.
Ukrainian journal Ukrainska Pravda reported that Boris Johnson told Zelensky that the West would not support an agreement with Russia and the talks came to a halt.
According Ukrainska Pravda sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages.
The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with.
And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.
Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to "press him."
Three days after Johnson left for Britain, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end".
Three days later, Roman Abramovich arrived in Kyiv again, and President Zelenskyy officially stated that there could be two security agreements with Russia: one would concern Ukraine's coexistence with Russia, the other - only security guarantees, because not everyone "sees themselves at the same table with the Russian Federation ".
After that, according to Ukrainska Pravda sources, the bilateral negotiation process was paused.
Israeli PM Naftali Bennet confirmed the above two reports: that Ukraine and Russia were making progress in talks (that Bennet was mediating) but that the US and UK "blocked" the negotiations because they saw an opportunity to "strike" Russia:
(starting at 2:56:51)
;t=3s
From the Youtube transcript:
starting at 2:56:51
Starting at 2:56:51 --
we can divide the spectrum of leaders, who's tending more towards "now we have to fight Putin."
2:56:58
Because we mustn't reward
the bad guys. –Right. And who says, "forget war,
everyone loses."-Right.
2:57:05
Boris Johnson adopted
the aggressive line.
2:57:12
Macron and Scholz
were more pragmatic
2:57:18
and Biden was both. And… that's it.
2:57:25
Then I return to Israel
and a negotiations marathon of drafts begins.
2:57:31
Now…
-Your office deals with this? Not the foreign ministry or…
-The NSC.
2:57:37
And I do everything vis a vis…
2:57:43
the NSC and… with Shimrit. I update…
[ . . . ]
2:59:28
It went back and forth and then…
2:59:34
I'll say this in the broad sense, I think there was
a legitimate decision by the West
2:59:43
to keep striking Putin
and not...
2:59:51
"Strike Putin?"
Putin was striking Ukraine. Hold on, yes, but given… I mean the more aggressive approach.
I'll tell you something?
2:59:59
I can't say if they were wrong. Maybe other thugs in the world
would see it. My position at the time…
3:00:07
in this regard,
it's not a national Israeli interest. Unlike the consulate or Iran,
3:00:12
when I'm concerned about Israel,
I stand firm. –Yes. Here, I don’t have a say. I'm just the mediator,
3:00:19
but I turn to America
in this regard, I don’t do as I please.
3:00:25
Anything I did was coordinated
down to the last detail with the US, Germany and France.
3:00:32
So they blocked it?
-Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong.
3:00:40
In retrospect,
it's too soon to know. The advantages
and disadvantages:
3:00:47
The downside of the war going on is the casualties
You imply that the Minsk compromise that would have made the Donbas partially autonomous but remain in Ukraine plus NATO officially committing to not enlarge into Ukraine would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year. And this was possible before the war and in March-April 2022 when a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
"You imply that the Minsk compromise (surrendering to Russia's demands) ... would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year (full scale invasion)."
No, I think he's saying that refusing Russian demands as a condition to stop its aggression in the Donbass aren't "justification" for the full-scale invasion.
You'd blame the store owner who refuses to pay protection money, for the firebombing that resulted.
"Surrender" is an inflammatory word that obscures the reasonable demands that Russia was making:
(1) That Ukraine implement what it agreed to do (Minsk2)
(2) That Ukraine agree not to join NATO.
But rather than accept these demands, hundreds of thousands have died, millions have fled, infrastructure has been destroyed, political parties, media and a religious order have been banned.
And rather than halting the devastation with a cease-fire and negotiations, you prefer to continue the fight to the last Ukrainian.
You imply that the Minsk compromise that would have made the Donbas partially autonomous but remain in Ukraine plus NATO officially committing to not enlarge into Ukraine would have been worse than what has happened to Ukraine over the last year. And this was possible before the war and in March-April 2022 when a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
No, we all shouldn't "agree to disagree" about the claim that "a similar tentative agreement was sabotaged by the US and UK" because that's not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Not the first time this has been pointed out.
Here's the evidence that the US and UK sabotaged the tentative peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia in April 2022, that's been posted here before:
US security insiders Fiona Hill and Angela Stent report a tentative agreement was reached:
According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.
Ukrainian journal Ukrainska Pravda reported that Boris Johnson told Zelensky that the West would not support an agreement with Russia and the talks came to a halt.
According Ukrainska Pravda sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages.
The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with.
And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.
Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to "press him."
Three days after Johnson left for Britain, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end".
Three days later, Roman Abramovich arrived in Kyiv again, and President Zelenskyy officially stated that there could be two security agreements with Russia: one would concern Ukraine's coexistence with Russia, the other - only security guarantees, because not everyone "sees themselves at the same table with the Russian Federation ".
After that, according to Ukrainska Pravda sources, the bilateral negotiation process was paused.
Israeli PM Naftali Bennet confirmed the above two reports: that Ukraine and Russia were making progress in talks (that Bennet was mediating) but that the US and UK "blocked" the negotiations because they saw an opportunity to "strike" Russia:
(starting at 2:56:51)
;t=3s
From the Youtube transcript:
starting at 2:56:51
Starting at 2:56:51 --
we can divide the spectrum of leaders, who's tending more towards "now we have to fight Putin."
2:56:58
Because we mustn't reward
the bad guys. –Right. And who says, "forget war,
everyone loses."-Right.
2:57:05
Boris Johnson adopted
the aggressive line.
2:57:12
Macron and Scholz
were more pragmatic
2:57:18
and Biden was both. And… that's it.
2:57:25
Then I return to Israel
and a negotiations marathon of drafts begins.
2:57:31
Now…
-Your office deals with this? Not the foreign ministry or…
-The NSC.
2:57:37
And I do everything vis a vis…
2:57:43
the NSC and… with Shimrit. I update…
[ . . . ]
2:59:28
It went back and forth and then…
2:59:34
I'll say this in the broad sense, I think there was
a legitimate decision by the West
2:59:43
to keep striking Putin
and not...
2:59:51
"Strike Putin?"
Putin was striking Ukraine. Hold on, yes, but given… I mean the more aggressive approach.
I'll tell you something?
2:59:59
I can't say if they were wrong. Maybe other thugs in the world
would see it. My position at the time…
3:00:07
in this regard,
it's not a national Israeli interest. Unlike the consulate or Iran,
3:00:12
when I'm concerned about Israel,
I stand firm. –Yes. Here, I don’t have a say. I'm just the mediator,
3:00:19
but I turn to America
in this regard, I don’t do as I please.
3:00:25
Anything I did was coordinated
down to the last detail with the US, Germany and France.
3:00:32
So they blocked it?
-Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong.
3:00:40
In retrospect,
it's too soon to know. The advantages
and disadvantages:
3:00:47
The downside of the war going on is the casualties
in Ukraine and Russia,
3:00:57
it's a very harsh blow
to Ukraine, the country. There will have to be
a huge restoration of the infrastructures,
Click to Read More
starting at 2:56:51
Starting at 2:56:51 --
we can divide the spectrum of leaders, who's tending more towards "now we have to fight Putin."
2:56:58
Because we mustn't reward
the bad guys. –Right. And who says, "forget war,
everyone loses."-Right.
2:57:05
Boris Johnson adopted
the aggressive line.
2:57:12
Macron and Scholz
were more pragmatic
2:57:18
and Biden was both. And… that's it.
2:57:25
Then I return to Israel
and a negotiations marathon of drafts begins.
2:57:31
Now…
-Your office deals with this? Not the foreign ministry or…
-The NSC.
2:57:37
And I do everything vis a vis…
2:57:43
the NSC and… with Shimrit. I update…
[ . . . ]
2:59:28
It went back and forth and then…
2:59:34
I'll say this in the broad sense, I think there was
a legitimate decision by the West
2:59:43
to keep striking Putin
and not...
2:59:51
"Strike Putin?"
Putin was striking Ukraine. Hold on, yes, but given… I mean the more aggressive approach.
I'll tell you something?
2:59:59
I can't say if they were wrong. Maybe other thugs in the world
would see it. My position at the time…
3:00:07
in this regard,
it's not a national Israeli interest. Unlike the consulate or Iran,
3:00:12
when I'm concerned about Israel,
I stand firm. –Yes. Here, I don’t have a say. I'm just the mediator,
3:00:19
but I turn to America
in this regard, I don’t do as I please.
3:00:25
Anything I did was coordinated
down to the last detail with the US, Germany and France.
3:00:32
So they blocked it?
-Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong.
3:00:40
In retrospect,
it's too soon to know. The advantages
and disadvantages:
3:00:47
The downside of the war going on is the casualties
in Ukraine and Russia,
3:00:57
it's a very harsh blow
to Ukraine, the country. There will have to be
a huge restoration of the infrastructures,
I'd say Paul doesn't know how to use the search function, otherwise he could quite easily find all the times he's made this argument before and the followups where I've pointed out the problems with his argument. Or perhaps I don't know how to use the search function, because I can't find any place where Paul has ever been able to substantively respond.
"Surrender" is an inflammatory word that obscures the reasonable demands that Russia was making:
(1) That Ukraine implement what it agreed to do (Minsk2)
(2) That Ukraine agree not to join NATO.
But rather than accept these demands, hundreds of thousands have died, millions have fled, infrastructure has been destroyed, political parties, media and a religious order have been banned.
And rather than halting the devastation with a cease-fire and negotiations, you prefer to continue the fight to the last Ukrainian.
You urge pressure on Ukraine to stop fighting, but nothing on Russia. You want Ukraine to stop fighting even if Russia doesn't. You want Ukraine's allies to stop supporting it militarily, which obviously leaves it vulnerable if Russia stops fighting, and which even in the best case scenario of a cease fire leaves Ukraine vulnerable to renewed Russian aggression. You do not want any countries -- US, China, anyone -- to commit direct military force to enforce any settlement, which would leave Russia as the only country there with substantial military capability.
"Surrender" is an accurate description of your position.
Furthermore, in denying that Russia has a “right” to oppose extension of a hostile military alliance to its national borders, the United States ignores its own history
This seems the key passage. Much of US meddling in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America had far more to do with imperialism than legitimate security interests. If one supports all those US activities, and wants to see more of them, then support for Russia's actions in Ukraine is perfectly consistent. If one opposed those actions, and would be opposed to similar such action in the future, then one ought to also oppose Russia's actions on the same principles.
There is the third option, the one you seem to have chosen, where one opposes US action but supports similar Russian actions (and yes, you support it -- your claims to oppose it are belied by the substantive position you advance of Ukrainian surrender). There's clearly no generalized anti-imperialist principle in such a stance, simply a preference for Russian imperialism over that of the US.
Can we stick to the topic which is - Vlad annihilating a sovereign nation which he land grabbed through sham referendums and his ultimate goal to save the world from Nazis (again)?