What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

US fighters ‘captured’ by Russian forces in Ukraine

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
517
Points
903
Location
PacNW
Not too different from Russia invading countries by force and then recognizing chunks of territory in those countries as independent states.
From Russia's viewpoint this may be true. The "not too different" part.

The timeframe and manner of recognition are completely different though. Imho.

NATO's earlier aggression and the ongoing occupation were factors in preventing Serbia from acting against Kosovo's independence.

And NATO's recognition of Kosovo helped them break away too.

I don't see how Kosovo's independence can be separated from NATO's actions against Serbia.
I don't think they have to be separated- all those things are true. NATO obviously did help Kosovo gain independence.
Maybe with the passage of time the West will come to accept Russia's theft of territory.
This is the fundamental difference as I see it, and why I don't take the comparison beyond the 2 points I mentioned.

NATO bombed Milosevic to the bargaining table (in violation of the UN Charter, conceded), and led a peacekeeping force afterwards under UN auspices (KFOR/UNMIK). With many non-NATO countries participating, including Russia and Ukraine.

NATO didn't attach territory from Serbia to another NATO State. Russia is annexing Ukraine by force.

The West doesn't really care when Russia does this in Central Asia, or bombs Syrian cities to rubble. Okay, we get that. We didn't do shit for Rwanda either.

I said at the outset- I don't think Europe is going to sit for it in Ukraine. Ukraine is just a little too "European" for that to fly. Grozny? Grumble grumble. Aleppo? Grumble grumble. Crimea? GRUMBLE GRUMBLE.

Kiev? Uh, not so fast Abernathy...

I mean, Sweden is joining NATO ffs!
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
NATO didn't attach territory from Serbia to another NATO State.
I don't think that matters. They still took Kosovo from Serbia against Serbia's will.


Russia is annexing Ukraine by force.
I agree that to exactly follow the Kosovo precedent, Russia will need to set up independent states instead of annexing territory directly.


I said at the outset- I don't think Europe is going to sit for it in Ukraine. Ukraine is just a little too "European" for that to fly. Grozny? Grumble grumble. Aleppo? Grumble grumble. Crimea? GRUMBLE GRUMBLE.
Kiev? Uh, not so fast Abernathy...
Russia already failed in their attempt to topple Kyiv and capture all of Ukraine. I doubt they will try again.

But had Russia successfully taken Kyiv, there is not much that the West would have been able to do about it.

Now Russia is back to carving out chunks of territory. And Russia surely wants to capture Odessa and the entire north coast of the Black Sea.

Whether they will succeed against Odessa and the north coast of the Black Sea remains to be seen. They failed to take Kyiv and all of Ukraine. They succeeded in taking eastern parts of Ukraine, but at great cost.
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
517
Points
903
Location
PacNW
I don't think that matters. They still took Kosovo from Serbia against Serbia's will.
Yeah, that happened. Serbia was killing a lot of ethnic Albanians, and from my viewpoint was the aggressor in the dispute with Kosovo.

Sometimes there are no good options. It's a choice between bad or worse.
I agree that to exactly follow the Kosovo precedent, Russia will need to set up independent states instead of annexing territory directly.
They would need to cease hostilities, agree to a UN protectorate status, remove their military forces who were not under UN auspices, setup an inclusive civil government, and make a serious attempt at a negotiated settlement on the status of the States.

That would be following the Kosovo precedent.
Russia already failed in their attempt to topple Kyiv and capture all of Ukraine. I doubt they will try again.

But had Russia successfully taken Kyiv, there is not much that the West would have been able to do about it.

Now Russia is back to carving out chunks of territory. And Russia surely wants to capture Odessa and the entire north coast of the Black Sea.

Whether they will succeed against Odessa and the north coast of the Black Sea remains to be seen. They failed to take Kyiv and all of Ukraine. They succeeded in taking eastern parts of Ukraine, but at great cost.
Russia can outmass, Kiev can outclass. It all depends on Europe.

My fear is that NATO is fine with a prolonged war. Give Kiev enough to fight to a stalemate, but try not to inflict to much harm on Russia. That would be a bad idea. This is a test for NATO, it's showtime.
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Yeah, that happened. Serbia was killing a lot of ethnic Albanians, and from my viewpoint was the aggressor in the dispute with Kosovo.
That isn't true. There were no widespread murders.

There was widespread ethnic cleansing, but only after NATO began their massive bombardment, and only in response to NATO's massive bombardment.

Before NATO's massive bombardment, all there was, was Kosovar terrorists murdering innocent Serbs, and frustrated Serbian security forces murdering innocent villagers when they could not find the terrorists hiding out in those villages. It was a lot like frustrated US soldiers in Vietnam murdering villagers when they could not find the Vietcong fighters that were hiding in the village.

Those atrocities were not widespread. The atrocities were evenly matched on both sides. And it was the Kosovar terrorists who were provoking all the violence.


Sometimes there are no good options. It's a choice between bad or worse.
There was no violence in 2006. There was no need to take Kosovo away from Serbia. Things would have been just fine if we had let Kosovo stay as an autonomous province within Serbia.

For that matter, there was no need for a massive bombing campaign in 1999. It was just a pointless act of aggression that got a lot of innocent Serbs killed.


They would need to cease hostilities, agree to a UN protectorate status, remove their military forces who were not under UN auspices, setup an inclusive civil government, and make a serious attempt at a negotiated settlement on the status of the States.
That would be following the Kosovo precedent.
If the UN would agree to legitimize these new states that Russia is carving out of Ukraine (with Russian soldiers serving in them under UN auspices) I suspect that Russia would be agreeable.


Russia can outmass, Kiev can outclass. It all depends on Europe.
My fear is that NATO is fine with a prolonged war. Give Kiev enough to fight to a stalemate, but try not to inflict to much harm on Russia. That would be a bad idea. This is a test for NATO, it's showtime.
I'm not sure what you expect NATO to do besides give weapons and ammunition to Ukraine.
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
517
Points
903
Location
PacNW
That isn't true. There were no widespread murders.

There was widespread ethnic cleansing, but only after NATO began their massive bombardment, and only in response to NATO's massive bombardment.

Before NATO's massive bombardment, all there was, was Kosovar terrorists murdering innocent Serbs, and frustrated Serbian security forces murdering innocent villagers when they could not find the terrorists hiding out in those villages. It was a lot like frustrated US soldiers in Vietnam murdering villagers when they could not find the Vietcong fighters that were hiding in the village.

Those atrocities were not widespread. The atrocities were evenly matched on both sides. And it was the Kosovar terrorists who were provoking all the violence.
I know there was a lot of shit going on by both sides, I know someone who was in the Canadian contingent in KFOR. I know the narrative was one-sided.
I'm not sure what you expect NATO to do besides give weapons and ammunition to Ukraine.
Europe has to decide what it wants. So far it's been the Eastern European countries that have done the heavy lifting. But yes- it would take weapons, ammunition, training, logistics, fuel, ISR, air defenses, coastal defenses, patrol vessels, and aircraft in sufficient numbers and capability to deny Russia's air force, and conduct standoff strikes deep into Russia to hit the rail logistics and military bases in Russia.

That means the full spectrum of western weapons, in real numbers.

Russia uses TU-22 bombers flying out of Russia and Belarus to fire KH-22 and KH-31 cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities hundreds of kilometers from the fighting.

Ukraine didn't just give up nukes in 1994. They had a huge bomber fleet of TU-22's and TU-95's and TU-160's and thousands of long range cruise missiles. The US talked them into destroying them or transferring them to Russia, and paid for it under Nunn-Lugar.

I'm sure the Ukrainian Air Force thinks about that from time to time.

 
Last edited:

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,338
Reaction score
1,064
Points
140
If the UN would agree to legitimize these new states that Russia is carving out of Ukraine (with Russian soldiers serving in them under UN auspices) I suspect that Russia would be agreeable
Some time ago (I don't exactly remember the year, 2016 or 2017), Ukraine proposed to start a UN peacekeeping mission in the Donbas. Russia rejected it from the start.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,338
Reaction score
1,064
Points
140
Russia can outmass, Kiev can outclass. It all depends on Europe.

My fear is that NATO is fine with a prolonged war. Give Kiev enough to fight to a stalemate, but try not to inflict to much harm on Russia. That would be a bad idea. This is a test for NATO, it's showtime
A stalemate will be a good outcome. Why not? I can't see Ukrainian army losing a load of lives to get the Donbas cities back. Or what will remain from them. The Korean scenario is okay. Basically, I would consider it a win for Ukraine. The main question is where the line of a stalemate will come.
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Some time ago (I don't exactly remember the year, 2016 or 2017), Ukraine proposed to start a UN peacekeeping mission in the Donbas. Russia rejected it from the start.
A version that legitimized the region's independence from Ukraine and rubber stamped Russia's troop presence there as peacekeepers would probably be viewed more favorably in Russia.
 

Open Bolt

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
647
Points
163
Location
Michigan
I know there was a lot of shit going on by both sides, I know someone who was in the Canadian contingent in KFOR. I know the narrative was one-sided.
Keep in mind that Russia and Serbia are still quite bitter over the way Serbia was treated. This bitterness helps to shape Russian attitudes towards their own seizures of territory. Any pleas to Russians to "respect territorial integrity and not change international borders by force" are likely to be ridiculed or worse.


Europe has to decide what it wants. So far it's been the Eastern European countries that have done the heavy lifting. But yes- it would take weapons, ammunition, training, logistics, fuel, ISR, air defenses, coastal defenses, patrol vessels, and aircraft in sufficient numbers and capability to deny Russia's air force, and conduct standoff strikes deep into Russia to hit the rail logistics and military bases in Russia.
The ultimate goal has to be to prevent a catastrophic nuclear war that ends all human civilization, and maybe even ends humanity.

Any direct warfare between Russia and NATO is likely to escalate to a catastrophic nuclear war, so that too must be avoided.

So the first priority should be to ensure that Russia never invades any NATO country.

Keeping Russia occupied in a long drawn out war in Ukraine will prevent them from invading a NATO country for as long as the war continues. And if the war manages to exhaust Russia and deplete their ability to fight, it can even prevent them from invading a NATO country for a period of time after the war has ended. So I think there is a good argument for a long drawn-out war.

Also, if the West gets too aggressive in helping Ukraine defend themselves, there is a risk that the Ukraine war itself could escalate to a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

If we were to arm Ukraine to the extent that Ukraine started conducting regular bombing missions deep into Russia, how would Russia respond to that?


Ukraine didn't just give up nukes in 1994. They had a huge bomber fleet of TU-22's and TU-95's and TU-160's and thousands of long range cruise missiles. The US talked them into destroying them or transferring them to Russia, and paid for it under Nunn-Lugar.
I'm sure the Ukrainian Air Force thinks about that from time to time.
Hopefully Ukraine is on a path to EU membership now and has a much brighter future in store for them.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
6,338
Reaction score
1,064
Points
140
A version that legitimized the region's independence from Ukraine and rubber stamped Russia's troop presence there as peacekeepers would probably be viewed more favorably in Russia.
But this version doesn't make sense.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$45.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top