- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
Then, if the Ukrainians are asking for a security guarantee, and the US cannot provide that guarantee, then there is no deal to be made.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
I even think further US weapons supplied would come with usage caveats...
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
I can't imagine that the Ukrainians would not insist on clauses to prevent that kind of thing happening again. They've been stung by that already.
(Sorry for the double negative. It's getting late).
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
Perhaps. Maybe the arrogance of being in power for a month is beginning to fade.
But key for me, is why would Ukraine accept a deal that does not give them what they want - a just and lasting peace?
GoldstoneVintage
Well-known member
Superb (as always) from Timothy Snyder:
I don't know. The original draft agreement which Zelensky rejected was going to be under the jurisdiction of a New York Court but that condition has allegedly now been removed from the new proposal.
The coercion implied by other treaties you refer to is usually towards the defeated army who have surrendered, and are imposed by the victorious army.
However, in this case Ukraine are not surrendering and they are not being declared the defeated. And also unusual to this agreement is the fact that the conditions are not being imposed by the victorious army (as there isn't one) but by an outside party who are not even one of the warring parties.
All the conditions of the agreement are being imposed on Ukraine, none on Russia as Russia are not even party to the agreement..
And in fact its not even a peace treaty as peace isn't even a condition of the agreement. Its essentially just a business transaction between the US and Ukraine and the war appears to be free to continue. In fact the continuation of hostilities appears essential to the agreement as that is the basis of the conditions of the agreement which is ongoing support during the hostilities.
So the US are essentially profiteering from the continuation of hostilities. It wasn't in Trump's interests to negotiate a peace treaty and he clearly hasn't. It's probably why he didn't want Ukraine or Europe involved in the so called "negotiations" with Russia as he didn't want them to know the lack of effort he had gone to towards achieving peace. He probably merely expressed his gratitude to Putin for putting the circumstances in place and maintaining them to enable him to secure this very profitable business transaction for the US (and Musk).
Last edited:
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 2,931
All very 1939 isn’t it.
Poland being divided by Hitler and Stalin
Two stains on human history.
The only issue I have, is which one is which in the current betrayal?
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
It’s not though.
Poland in 1939 was brave but militarily hopeless. it relied on cavalry rather than tanks which is why it fell so quickly.
Ukraine on the other is holding it‘s own and with the new support from Europe it Will continue to bog down Russia.
Secondly the US is 5k miles away so not sure how they are going to get feet on the ground, added to that Russia is a basket case.
My view is that Trump and Musk thought Ukraine would straight away given in to US demands and so now they are scrabbling about trying to force the issue. They both need a quick victory otherwise they’ll look like the idiots we know they are.
GoldstoneVintage
Well-known member
Hard to dispute. Hopefully the handwringing in Europe will quickly convert to clear eyed decision making to mitigate this dreadful turn of events. We also need to support opposition in the US which I'm guessing will only grow.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 5,001
It’s not my stat, it’s from a YouGov poll sponsored by The Times.
What does Gen Z think about Britain? | YouGov
Just 41% of Gen Z Britons say they are proud to be British, half the level among young people 20 years ago
search.app
You can challenge the accuracy of YouGov’s findings, but a survey on Gen Z attitudes was carried out and the findings have been published.
You can challenge the relevance of YouGovs findings, but in a discussion about the potential for this country to be actively engaged in a conflict, or conscription etc. it is evidently not irrelevant to reference the findings no matter what you and others say.
I don’t know for a FACT like you that their losses are having an effect on morale, what I see is that Russia occupies parts of Ukraine and not vice versa.
Until Ukraine does roll back the Russians from its territory I will assume that it’s military are managing to keep on top of the morale/logistical issues that you have mentioned.
I agree 100% with the writer. Fxck Trump and America.
A reply to Snyder's tweet:
"
DOGE is not a cost saving effort.
DOGE is a clandestine operation to secure an authoritarian regime beyond elections.
Humans are being replaced by machines
Machines have no individual discretion.
Machines are agents of those in power.
Trump has always envied Xi Jinping because he “has control of his population”
Xi uses artificial intelligence enabled face recognition, cameras, social modeling, and other apparatus to control the Chinese
"
DOGE is not a cost saving effort.
DOGE is a clandestine operation to secure an authoritarian regime beyond elections.
Humans are being replaced by machines
Machines have no individual discretion.
Machines are agents of those in power.
Trump has always envied Xi Jinping because he “has control of his population”
Xi uses artificial intelligence enabled face recognition, cameras, social modeling, and other apparatus to control the Chinese
- Jan 18, 2009
- 5,001
No I’m not. We know that what was required in 1939 would not be required today should the U.K. become entangled militarily in Russia. The reality is, as you recognise, the military will need to become larger than its current state.
That’s what brings the consequences of that very logical decision into sharp focus with other domestic political decisions that will involve tax and/or budgetary cuts.
It’s also why YouGov’s poll is relevant, you may think it’s “nonsense” but until another poll is undertaken it’s the only dataset I can find that indicates what attitudes are to fighting for the U.K. from the generation that would be required to fill the ranks of the larger military we both agree need to happen.
You reference Ukraine’s draft, do you believe if we rolled out the same here in order to (say) add 20000 soldiers to the ranks there would be no political or social push back?
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
It’s time for Americans to stand up to Trump before it’s too late. I hope they understand what they’ve voted for.
Well there's no way you could trust a US court to rule on whether another country had to pay the US a lot of money.
Yes, that's what I meant.
But that's not relevant. If a contract isn't legally valid if coercion is used, then the coercion towards a defeated country would make treaties null and void too. There's not a caveat in international law that means 'coercion makes contracts void, unless the country is defeated'.
I know it's not, I used a peace treaty as an example of where coercion might be used to make a country come to an agreement.
- Jan 25, 2025
- 113
Then why did you imply that it is?
I don’t think YouGov’s poll is nonsense, I think your analysis of it is.
Of course not. What I believe is that your view is far too negative.