If Ukraine loses the war and Russia occupies Ukraine, the US and Europe may not have a choice, but to go to war

[Kruska]

Polish politicians are toxic, their Russophobia is deranged, they never seem to have a problem with the Germans who were responsible for killing six million Poles.....

Who told you that?
There are extreme resentments in the Polish government towards Germany - especially the present one - "officially" laying a compensation claim towards Germany - demanding US$ 8-10 TRILLION for war reparations. Just like the Turks are infatuated with restoring their Ottoman greatness - aka empire, so are the Polish politicians and elite circles with restoring their former Polish-Lithuanian Empire aka Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

 

[JohnDB]

First of all, we are now in no way “denying” Ukraine “the opportunity to defend itself,” let alone “withdrawing recognition of its sovereignty,” and I remind you it is not now in NATO!

Indeed, we very mistakenly announced as early as 2008 under George Bush that Ukraine & Georgia “will join NATO” — at a time when even the majority of people in those countries did not favor NATO membership. This was provocative madness, as many reasonable statesmen pointed out at the time.

Though it is not in NATO we are now financing most of Ukraine’s government and military with billions of dollars. NATO countries are sheltering its women and children refugees. We are providing modern training, modern weapons and super-valuable intelligence and communications equipment. It seems you are as hung up on “NATO membership” as is Russia.

The original verbal promises to Gorbachev and others that the U.S. would not expand NATO eastward worked well in mollifying Russia and encouraging it to withdraw its own troops from Eastern Europe, allowed the unification of Germany, and ultimately won independence for Ukraine. It encouraged the initial break-up of the Soviet Union and at least opened up the possibility of dramatic democratic change within Russia. Breaking those oral promises and expanding NATO to the East had precisely the opposite effect.

Russian borders have moved far to the West as a result of WWII, as have Polish borders. Russia has no further claim on Polish lands. So what is it with Polish authoritarianism and paranoia toward Russia today?

I do not defend Russian imperial instincts, pan-Slavism, Putin’s interfering in Ukraine, or his invasion. The huge Czarist and then Soviet Empires, like the giant existing Russian Federation, for historical reasons developed under conditions extremely hostile to democracy, and Russian political culture is today still profoundly reactionary, statist and hostile to “rule of law.” The “oil curse” is another factor at work there.

Russia should have been handled more carefully by the West. Perhaps it would have made no difference. All we can say is Russian state paranoia runs deep and our policies did not help. Having NATO membership and its “guarantee of protection” in case of war may ironically be giving countries like Poland a dangerous sense of invulnerability and encouraging their own desire to “rectify historical injustices” against Russia. Russian aggression in Eastern Europe — with or without Ukraine (or hypothetically Poland) being in NATO and on the front line — would bring a mobilization of NATO countries and force them to be more responsible for their own self defense. They are already realizing they have been too complacent.

The idea of a “neutral” Austria and Finland worked even when paranoid Stalin was alive. It is hardly inconceivable that a neutral Ukraine would have been a better goal for U.S. foreign policy, and even for Ukraine itself.

But we are where we are. The past cannot be changed. We must defend Ukraine against this Russian attempt to destroy it. Crimea is slightly different. There remains — we have all but ignored this except in the case of Kosovo — still an internationally recognized “right of self determination” — which means that there are real possibilities for a diplomatic settlement over Crimea which is not aimed at satisfying either all Ukrainian or all Russian claims.

But how do you straighten out Ukraine's trade problems if they lose Crimea?

Because Ukraine will not be able to trade with its normal trade partners without Crimea. Then there's the issue of fresh water in Crimea....it's totally controlled by Ukraine. And if Ukraine can't trade then Crimea gets no fresh water and we are right back to the start of the war all over again.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Russia will move against the Baltic republics and Poland will invade Belarus for starters.

 

[Kruska]

The Russians can no longer “win the war” but at best only inherit a burden, even if they somehow get a favorable peace deal after 2024. U.S. rulers, especially if Republicans win the next election, will eventually decide to cut back on helping the Ukrainians,...

What makes you think so? aside from the inherent clashes on this Forum between Biden and Trump followers, blaming single individuals?
Or Trump's well known and meaningless/empty election promises?

The NATO Eastward Expansion and almost all warmongering NATO expeditions were undertaken and initiated by Republicans - aka the Bush family and friends and carried on by the Obama administration. That Afghanistan was a lost cause - everyone was aware of that - Trump simply picked up the existing resentments amongst the society and it's elites and declared the end of US participation in Afghanistan - thus automatically ending the NATO/ISAF chapter.

A single President e.g. Biden or a Trump does not decide upon the US economic and warmongering strategy - but the existing elites and their circles.

Trump was an absolute incapable and moronic US president - who only worked and was/is interested in his own bank account and ego. He backed away from every scenario that spelled war - e.g. N-Korea, Russia-Ukraine and Iran. Therefore factually enhancing those four to continue their path. He also thought that getting into a trade-war with China would make the USA (actually himself) look as being a winner. Factually he only screwed up the global economy - with everyone suffering.

If Trump manages to get reelected - it will be only due to him having to compromise with democratic elites and their circles and especially with those being termed presently as RINO's. (Afterall the entire world, now knows his true charater and non-existing governing capabilities) And the foremost interest of the USA (absolutely independent of being presided by a democrat or republican president) isn't a Pax Romana - but to keep controlling the globe, with whatever necessary means deemed necessary.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

... Russia is the big loser of the 21st century, destined to be a minor client state of China, who will be the major trading partner of the US-EuroUnion.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

But how do you straighten out Ukraine's trade problems if they lose Crimea?

Because Ukraine will not be able to trade with its normal trade partners without Crimea. Then there's the issue of fresh water in Crimea....it's totally controlled by Ukraine. And if Ukraine can't trade then Crimea gets no fresh water and we are right back to the start of the war all over again.

I think we shouldn’t get ahead of things and try to figure out what exactly could be agreed to in the case of a cease fire or eventual peace treaty. But a lasting peace would surely allow for Black Sea navigation rights for both sides, no matter the status of Crimea. Odessa would continue as Ukraine’s main port, airlines would be allowed to fly again out of Kiev and other Ukrainian cities, etc.

A real peace treaty, assuming there was one, might call for an “eventual” internationally observed referendum for Crimea. Russia would have to be in terrible shape to allow one that would offer alternatives like a return to Ukraine, or independence, but it should be noted that they did overwhelmingly win the referendums held back in 2014. Crimea had always voted overwhelmingly for the pro-Russian parties before Maidan. The Crimean economy needs a return of tourists. Water supplies to Crimea could be guaranteed by Ukraine as a trade-off for other territories returned to Ukraine.

But all this is premature, and could only work when all sides are exhausted, stalemated and willing to talk seriously about a cease fire that can last more than a few weeks, or “land for peace.”

 

[toomuchtime_]

First of all, we are now in no way “denying” Ukraine “the opportunity to defend itself,” let alone “withdrawing recognition of its sovereignty,” and I remind you it is not now in NATO!

Indeed, we very mistakenly announced as early as 2008 under George Bush that Ukraine & Georgia “will join NATO” — at a time when even the majority of people in those countries did not favor NATO membership. This was provocative madness, as many reasonable statesmen pointed out at the time.

Though it is not in NATO we are now financing most of Ukraine’s government and military with billions of dollars. NATO countries are sheltering its women and children refugees. We are providing modern training, modern weapons and super-valuable intelligence and communications equipment. It seems you are as hung up on “NATO membership” as is Russia.

The original verbal promises to Gorbachev and others that the U.S. would not expand NATO eastward worked well in mollifying Russia and encouraging it to withdraw its own troops from Eastern Europe, allowed the unification of Germany, and ultimately won independence for Ukraine. It encouraged the initial break-up of the Soviet Union and at least opened up the possibility of dramatic democratic change within Russia. Breaking those oral promises and expanding NATO to the East had precisely the opposite effect.

Russian borders have moved far to the West as a result of WWII, as have Polish borders. Russia has no further claim on Polish lands. So what is it with Polish authoritarianism and paranoia toward Russia today?

I do not defend Russian imperial instincts, pan-Slavism, Putin’s interfering in Ukraine, or his invasion. The huge Czarist and then Soviet Empires, like the giant existing Russian Federation, for historical reasons developed under conditions extremely hostile to democracy, and Russian political culture is today still profoundly reactionary, statist and hostile to “rule of law.” The “oil curse” is another factor at work there.

Russia should have been handled more carefully by the West. Perhaps it would have made no difference. All we can say is Russian state paranoia runs deep and our policies did not help. Having NATO membership and its “guarantee of protection” in case of war may ironically be giving countries like Poland a dangerous sense of invulnerability and encouraging their own desire to “rectify historical injustices” against Russia. Russian aggression in Eastern Europe — with or without Ukraine (or hypothetically Poland) being in NATO and on the front line — would bring a mobilization of NATO countries and force them to be more responsible for their own self defense. They are already realizing they have been too complacent.

The idea of a “neutral” Austria and Finland worked even when paranoid Stalin was alive. It is hardly inconceivable that a neutral Ukraine would have been a better goal for U.S. foreign policy, and even for Ukraine itself.

But we are where we are. The past cannot be changed. We must defend Ukraine against this Russian attempt to destroy it. Crimea is slightly different. There remains — we have all but ignored this except in the case of Kosovo — still an internationally recognized “right of self determination” — which means that there are real possibilities for a diplomatic settlement over Crimea which is not aimed at satisfying either all Ukrainian or all Russian claims.

First, according to Gorbachev, the topic of not allowing former soviet states was never discussed in 1990, so there was no oral assurance given on that subject. Gorbachev in a 2014 interview:

The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

Common sense should tell you that since the NATO Charter states every European country is eligible to join NATO if it applies and meets certain criteria, so it would have been impossible for NATO to have made such assurances, and the fact that there is no contemporaneous record of such discussions would tell an honest person that Putin lied.

Before Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia, there was little interest in Ukraine to join NATO and little interest in the US to see Ukraine in NATO, but after Russia's invasion of Georgia, which Putin tried to justify with the same lies you has used to try to justify his two invasions of Ukraine, there was a sudden increase among Ukrainians in joining NATO, and Ukraine applied and Bush supported that application, but sadly, too many Europeans were still deluded into thinking peace with Russia was possible. Had Ukraine been admitted in 2008, there would have been no 22014 or 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

NATO was not out recruiting nations to join; it was responding to applications from former soviet states that didn't trust Russia according to its Charter.

Since NATO has posed no threat to Russia's security since 1991, the only reason Russia has to object to former soviet states joining NATO is that it prevents Russia from attacking them, and that is the reason why it is important for them to join NATO.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

First, according to Gorbachev, the topic of not allowing former soviet states was never discussed in 1990, so there was no oral assurance given on that subject. Gorbachev in a 2014 interview:

The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

Common sense should tell you that since the NATO Charter states every European country is eligible to join NATO if it applies and meets certain criteria, so it would have been impossible for NATO to have made such assurances, and the fact that there is no contemporaneous record of such discussions would tell an honest person that Putin lied.

Before Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia, there was little interest in Ukraine to join NATO and little interest in the US to see Ukraine in NATO, but after Russia's invasion of Georgia, which Putin tried to justify with the same lies you has used to try to justify his two invasions of Ukraine, there was a sudden increase among Ukrainians in joining NATO, and Ukraine applied and Bush supported that application, but sadly, too many Europeans were still deluded into thinking peace with Russia was possible. Had Ukraine been admitted in 2008, there would have been no 22014 or 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

NATO was not out recruiting nations to join; it was responding to applications from former soviet states that didn't trust Russia according to its Charter.

Since NATO has posed no threat to Russia's security since 1991, the only reason Russia has to object to former soviet states joining NATO is that it prevents Russia from attacking them, and that is the reason why it is important for them to join NATO.

I think the Brookings Institute article is childish and based on misleading linguistic distinctions of no real import. As for Gorbachev, first of all he was hardly the only person involved. Widely blamed in Russia for allowing himself to be “hoodwinked” by Westerners on this issue., the old man here was trying to defend his honor and the West too, so he made a silly, self-serving and misleading distinction between “NATO expansion” and expanding “NATO military facilities and authority.”

The Brookings article runs with and distorts even Gorbachev’s view. In the actual interview, Gorbachev (still misleadingly) claimed of those first few years:

The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all … I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either … The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.

A much better overall picture of what happened in reality and what is still relevant today is portrayed in this brief summary and in the four short linked articles attached to it. These articles also reveal some of the more recent archival evidence that shows much more of what was said and “promised” in those heady days:

How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion | NATO Watch

Of course certain Machiavellians would argue that to the extent that the West was consciously duplicitous in telling Russian leaders lies they wanted to believe they were just being … “clever.”

Others might argue that the U.S. and its European allies had simply not decided yet on the final policy they would adopt a few years later, and were merely temporizing until matters became clearer. As it turned out, new developments would dramatically alter the thinking of all new leaders over the following years, and lead us to where we are today.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Had Ukraine been admitted in 2008, there would have been no 2014 or 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As I pointed out earlier, this is an absurd and even infantile argument. Ukraine’s people were not in favor of joining NATO in 2008. Ukraine was not at all ready governmentally or militarily to join or meet absolutely minimum requirements for joining NATO. Indeed, it was not even ready to sign an economic agreement with the EU. It was later to re-elect — in a fair election no less — the very corrupt Yanukovych government that was subsequently overthrown by the Maidan movement!

 

[zaangalewa]

Why?

What is our strategic interest in Ukraine?

A free Ukraine "under" (=within) all other free European independent nations (... and dependent regions with an own culture who need more respect and sometimes also more autonomy)).

 

[zaangalewa]

... Russia is careful enough not to mess with NATO block. ...

I'm not sure about this. 5 cent are sometimes enough reason for some people to murder someone else. I still do not see any logic or any realistic concept from Russia - except to try to bring the Urkainian, Belarussian and Russian population under total control with a total loss of every human perspective and the degrading of human beings to the marionettes of god like oligraschs or "pharaoes" as one of them is for example the North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Un in the third generation of tyrants. Unfortunatelly I am not this kind of alien who is able to laugh about all this deadly nonsense and I feel a deep compassion with the people of North Korea (and their weirdness because they have not any other chance than to be weird).

"Unimportant" historical remark: The author of "Don Quijote de la mancha" had been by the way a kind of Don Quixote on his own when he had been a slave of the cruel Bey of Algier and made from time to time a revolt to change this. Miguel de Cervantes always had been ready to die instead to be a slave. One day he came free and so we are able to read this wonderful book which he wrote afterwards. In later times the USA came with new modern canon boats and had destroyed this criminal state and had stopped the slave hunters and slave traders from Algier.

 

[Silver Cat]

You still don't get it. A 'draw' will be no thanks to Russia, but 'despite of' it.

So, they'll just raise the level of violence from 'special operation' to, say, 'local war', and what are you going to do then? And what are you going to do with, say, possible uprisings in Odessa and Kharkov?

 

[zaangalewa]

Let's not get hysterical. That's the mistake the West made in 2008, when Putin invaded Georgia, and made again in 2014 when Putin invaded Ukraine, and it is, of course the mistake the World made when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia,

Chechoslovakia had been "since ever" German territory. You - the allies of world war 1 - made the mistake to let suppress the second biggest and oldest group of the population of Checho-Germano-Slovakia. While all Chechs in Bohemia - one of the most important countries of Germany since Germans exist - always had been able to use their own language in front of judges and political leaders the Germans there suddenly had not any right to use their own language any longer. This - and much more other very very heavy mistakes and crimes of the winners of world war 1 - made Hitler! You created him with your madness! He got the very most of his totally absurde ideas not from Germans.

and now you want to make that same mistake again, now?

The so called "appeasement politics" of the Brits was carried from the fear they will lose the rest of their empire when they will go into a new war with Germany. Nevertheless they did do so - and lost the rest of their empire! The other motivation for this appeasement politics had it been that they liked to bring Germany and Russia into a war with each other. The strange thing now: In this case Poland had to fall! When this really had happened the Brits (and also France) had just simple to do nothing. Their "problem" had been solved. But ...

 

[zaangalewa]

toomuchtime_

By the way: That is today peace between Chechs and Germans is exclusivelly only to thank Germany and Chechia - and no one else on this rotten planet. Nevertheless is the relation between Chechs and Germans also now much more worse than it had been in history before the united superidiots of this planet invented this strange thing called "nationalism".

 

[Mac-7]

Putin doesn't want to occupy Ukraine, he wants to denazify it and trash their Western backed military so they will never be a threat ever again, and that is what is happening right now, you should thank god Putin is a reasonable man or Ukraine would be a pile of rancid rat shit by now.

Putin is a dictator and a liar

His goal is to recreate the old Soviet Union

 

[Mac-7]

As I pointed out earlier, this is an absurd and even infantile argument. Ukraine’s people were not in favor of joining NATO in 2008. Ukraine was not at all ready governmentally or militarily to join or meet absolutely minimum requirements for joining NATO. Indeed, it was not even ready to sign an economic agreement with the EU. It was later to re-elect — in a fair election no less — the very corrupt Yanukovych government that was subsequently overthrown by the Maidan movement!

Putin apologists hold Ukraine to a higher standard of democracy than they do the russians

Yes it has stumbled out of the gate with corruption

But thats to be expected given its history

 

[AlexanderPK]

His goal is to recreate the old Soviet Union

What's bad about that? Doesn't create or recreate have a positive connotation?

 

[AlexanderPK]

Ukraine will lose all right but here a Ukrainian woman's trying to explain why the war started.

 

[Papageorgio]

Zelensky: Ukrainian loss could force US to choose between ‘collapse of NATO’ or war

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday that a loss to Russia could ultimately force the U.S. to choose between the “collapse of NATO” or going to war. “If Ukraine would lose, if Russi…

thehill.com

I know it is scary, but that may be the only choice left. Putin is not going to stop at Ukraine, if he occupies the country.

You war mongers love your death and killing, as long as it isn’t you.

We are not the world police, I remember back in the day the real liberals protested death and war, now you are all for sacrificing our children, husbands, and wives in a war with no plan out.

 

[Deadstick]

Putin is a dictator and a liar

His goal is to recreate the old Soviet Union

Your problem is with some others you believe your own propaganda, there is zero evidence Putin wants to bring the Soviet Union back, and the Man is the elected President of Russia, it's called Democracy.