Shikanosuke wrote:Secondly, yes. At this point the conclusion to this situation would seem to have two likely scenarios. Either Ukraine takes back the territory, or it allows the regions to do as they wish (i.e. annex to Russia). I would assume Russian rule would mean stabilization of an otherwise lawless and chaotic environment. If there are more likely scenarios I'm more than happy to entertain them.
Okay, how about this one
for starters? Maybe not a 'likely' scenario at this point, but perhaps one worth pushing on.
Daniel Larison wrote:It does Ukraine no favors to encourage it to persist in an armed conflict that it will lose one way or another. The U.S. and its allies would be much wiser to support a political compromise and to use whatever influence they have to persuade Ukraine’s government to accept it. Lieven outlines what such a compromise might look like:
This allows the possibility of a political solution, which can only consist of a special autonomous status for the Donbass region within Ukraine.
The West should take advantage of any cease-fire efforts to craft and strongly advocate this solution, and should then negotiate the precise terms with Kiev and Moscow. Legally and morally, there can be no Western objection to this — it is after all the solution that the West has put forward to end conflicts in many parts of the world. In another former Soviet territory, Nagorno-Karabakh, the West went further and proposed the loosest form of confederation with Azerbaijan. This solution corresponds to history and local reality; for the Donbass is in fact a region with its own culture and traditions.
To separate the Donbass in this way while preserving the principle of Ukrainian territorial integrity would allow the West to help in developing and consolidating the rest of Ukraine without constant disturbances in the East.
It's probably not a stable solution in the medium- to long-term, but as a short-term solution I think such a scenario would provide a suitable way to stop the violence that doesn't result in genocide.
Shikanosuke wrote:What I said was it makes sense for NATO to want Ukraine, and for Ukraine to want NATO. That assumption is based on their porported fears of Russia, whether they be reasonable or not.
If you'd added that last bit it would have come across as less of a false dichotomy. But I would still take issue with it. Even if it makes sense from a Ukrainian perspective to want allied help against Russia, it's a completely insane move for NATO, since it just creates further political complications. NATO knows full well that its current strength is enough to stop any aggressive action by Russia even if it isn't up to a long-term full-scale land war with them. Adding the Ukraine is adding feet to the snake, to borrow the Chinese idiom.
Shikanosuke wrote:WWD, I find it more interesting that you think James is bashing you or that I'm asserting such a thing.
If you don't want to be seen as making stupid false dichotomies, you shouldn't make stupid false dichotomies. Or at least should be more careful with your language.
As for James, this entire attitude of 'you're a biased Russia-propagandist and your arguments are worthless for reasons which I'm not going to elaborate on or bother defending because it's beneath me and not worth my time' is really starting to wear. Maybe you don't see it as bashing.
Shikanosuke wrote:Ok. If Ukraine isn't/wasn't threatening Russia militarily, why does it care that a smaller and pro-Western government sits on its borders?
Let's use an analogy. Maybe that might make this point slightly easier for you to understand.
Mexico - not a military threat to US.
Mexico signs an economic-military association agreement with China and begins persecuting and arresting pro-American elements amongst its populace - perhaps reason for the US to be worried.
Shikanosuke wrote:Russia is after the same thing.
They weren't to begin with. They demonstrated themselves willing to allow Ukraine significant economic leeway in exchange for political alignment or at least neutrality. (And just so we're clear - Yanukovych was not opposed to the EU Accession Agreement at first
. He did one
thing that might have signalled a pro-Russia shift and the West lost its shit.) Maybe do some catch-up reading?
Shikanosuke wrote:This didn't really address my point.
Which was... that the pro-Russian rebels are comparable to a polygamous anti-government religious cult in Texas? What was
your point anyway?
Shikanosuke wrote:But when you 'move first' and fire on government armies don't cry foul when they respond. Don't cry you're the only victim in the situation when you fire first.
If the army were a little better at aiming at, you know, armed targets, that might be one thing. But they have killed 2,152 civilians, out of 2,593 overall deaths. And have been notoriously unsuccessful at hitting rebel targets.
Enough to make you wonder if they weren't doing it on purpose. Particularly when all these rebels can be easily identified by all this modern equipment you and James seem to think they have. And the accents!
But Nazis wouldn't deliberately hurt civilians or anything like that, would they?
Shikanosuke wrote:I just don't find dispersing peaceful protests (though I certainly find such things wrong) or even threats of military force, are grounds or taking up arms and essentially starting a war with your respective government.
Oh, that is high-larious
. Real knee-slapper. Go on and tell us another one.