Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

The point is, would you now accept Biden's view that Putin is a butcher?

Why do you ask this when I've already made it abundantly clear that I am totally opposed to all of Putin's methods, and indeed any war?

That's my view. I'm not interested in Bidens emotive expression or any US official opinion , given their appalling background of unjustified war methods and their Putin like behaviour in Iraq with Shock and Awe which killed 6700 civilians in Baghdad alone in the first three weeks.

In longer than that 3 weeks this Ukraine war in all areas has killed far, far fewer Ukrainian civilians:

Breakdown	Fatalities	Source
Civilians	3,892–4,275+ killed	Ukrainian government
	1,104 killed	United Nations

Why is that US behaviour acceptable; as you posted in reply to me, nothing like Putin's, yet the latter so appalling?

In my book they are both horrific and totally unacceptable, especially when peace would have been so easy to achieve in Ukraine and the war in Iraq was without any justification or excuse.
.

 

[Woosh]

I have never condoned any war, especially those started by US defense contractors. Ukraine however has the right for self defence. It seems to me that you blame zelenskiy for what happened to his country. Had he conceded to most Putin's demands, Putin having amassed 200,000 troops on its border had plans and meant war.

 

[Danidl]

Why do you ask this when I've already made it abundantly clear that I am totally opposed to all of Putin's methods, and indeed any war?

That's my view. I'm not interested in Bidens emotive expression or any US official opinion , given their appalling background of unjustified war methods and their Putin like behaviour in Iraq with Shock and Awe which killed 6700 civilians in Baghdad alone in the first three weeks.

In longer than that 3 weeks this Ukraine war in all areas has killed far, far fewer Ukrainian civilians:

Breakdown	Fatalities	Source
Civilians	3,892–4,275+ killed	Ukrainian government
	1,104 killed	United Nations

Why is that US behaviour acceptable; as you posted in reply to me, nothing like Putin's, yet the latter so appalling?

In my book they are both horrific and totally unacceptable, especially when peace would have been so easy to achieve in Ukraine and the war in Iraq was without any justification or excuse.
.

Flecc.. you must realise that the casualty figures are nonsense.

 

[flecc]

Ukraine however has the right for self defence. It seems to me that you blame zelenskiy for what happened to his country. Had he conceded to most Putin's demands, Putin having amassed 200,000 troops on its border had plans and meant war.

Not so. Zelensky and his predecessor share the responsibility for the scale of death and destruction. Even with the troops amassed, ostensibly for a joint exercise, Zelenskyy could have prevented the war. Putin didn't want an unnecessary war as shown by his troops not being told there was to be a war. All Putin needed to withdraw on a basis of the joint exercise ending was something to take back to the Duma. And he never wanted to retain Ukraine, nor could he as he well knew.

An acknowledgment that he could retain the Crimea by agreement, with turning on the water, plus emergency land access to there over Ukraine's territory if it became necessary is all that would have been needed. As a bonus that would almost certainly have stopped the Donbass civil war, since that was always a Putin ruse to get land access to Crimea.

Cost to Ukraine, nothing, since they'd never occupied or used the desert of Crimea to any noticeable extent. Anyway a friendly settlement would still allow Ukrainians access to Crimea, just like the Finns have crossed freely into Russia.
.

 

[flecc]

Flecc.. you must realise that the casualty figures are nonsense.

I recognise that the Ukrainian figures may well be inflated, the Baghdad one is our own Oxford study after careful work, so far more accurate.

Therefore emphasising the point I was making.
.

 

[Woosh]

Not so. Zelensky and his predecessor share the responsibility for the scale of death and destruction. Even with the troops amassed, ostensibly for a joint exercise, Zelenskyy could have prevented the war. Putin didn't want an unnecessary war as shown by his troops not being told there was to be a war. All Putin needed to withdraw on a basis of the joint exercise ending was something to take back to the Duma. And he never wanted to retain Ukraine, nor could he as he well knew.

An acknowledgment that he could retain the Crimea by agreement, with turning on the water, plus emergency land access to there over Ukraine's territory if it became necessary is all that would have been needed. As a bonus that would almost certainly have stopped the Donbass civil war, since that was always a Putin ruse to get land access to Crimea.

Cost to Ukraine, nothing, since they'd never occupied or used the desert of Crimea to any noticeable extent. Anyway a friendly settlement would still allow Ukrainians access to Crimea, just like the Finns have crossed freely into Russia.
.

I don't think Putin would have accepted anything less than his full list of conditions, including disarmament of the Ukrainian army. Bush did not pull US troops from Saudi Arabia after Sadam complied under similar situation.
As it turns out at the moment, Russia will get limited results for its investment in the war, unless it chooses to lose Putin and reform, another period of perestroika.

 

[Danidl]

I recognise that the Ukrainian figures may well be inflated, the Baghdad one is our own Oxford study after careful work, so far more accurate.

Therefore emphasising the point I was making.
.

Actually I think the Ukrainian civilian death figure would depressed for two reasons . First they have no worthwhile data from Mariupol, and second they would not want to affect civilian morale. The same would be true for a number of the heavily bombed towns . When the dust settles , I suspect a figure of 50,000 civilian deaths to be the current bill.

 

[flecc]

Bush did not pull US troops from Saudi Arabia after Sadam complied under similar situation.

Not surprising!

Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq.
.

 

[Woosh]

Not surprising!

Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq.
.

What I meant was once Putin had deployed that many troops, invasion was inevitable, only the extent could have been mitigated.

 

[flecc]

What I meant was once Putin had deployed that many troops, invasion was inevitable, only the extent could have been mitigated.

Not so, as I said he was only publicly committed to a joint exercise. Even his troops only knew that, so announcing the completion of the exercise was always possible. The window of opportunity was there for a very protracted period for Zelenskyy to act sensibly but instead he spat defiance, quite literally inviting war.

Putin is not stupid and not as irrationally dangerous as the propaganda makes him out to be. He would have welcomed an agreement just as he welcomed and accepted the one that was offered him half way across Georgia, withdrawing immediately without a win.

Why would he do different with concession offered, when he had no intention of retaining Ukraine, only wanting some concession from them?
.

 

[flecc]

What I meant was once Putin had deployed that many troops, invasion was inevitable, only the extent could have been mitigated.

Second reply:

An illustration of why Zelenskyy was so foolish at the outset.

He has since already conceded that Ukraine will never be able to be in NATO.

Now in breaking news tonight, he's offering concessions on Donbass and Ukrainian neutrality.

He could have done all this and more in the first instance in constructive discussions, ending with saving all the lost lives, avoiding all the destruction and with no mass emigration.
.

 

[soundwave]

 

[Woosh]

Second reply:

An illustration of why Zelenskyy was so foolish at the outset.

He has since already conceded that Ukraine will never be able to be in NATO.

Now in breaking news tonight, he's offering concessions on Donbass and Ukrainian neutrality.

He could have done all this and more in the first instance in constructive discussions, ending with saving all the lost lives, avoiding all the destruction and with no mass emigration.
.

Zelenskyy offered just as much before the war started, the West was well prepared for confrontation, and did not offer much to Putin from his list of demands. Clearly, regime change is preferable.
The war was always about Putin and his dictatorship and could only be stopped by Putin.
Putin's mistake was in that he bet too much. He went for regime change in Kiev. Had he stayed away from the North and concentrated on the Azov sea shore, winning a corridor by negotiations would have been a dead cert.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Not surprising!

Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq.
.

Sadam was not in any democratic capacity the leader of Iraq. You do make a compelling argument for 21st century nazi collaboration. I get that it generates hits, but in the long run you are of course wrong. Ukraine will join nato, Russia is an archaic artefact of a bygone oppressive time. Iraq with trees. An evolutionary dead end. You've evidently not lived in Finland. Nothing buoys the spirit as much as living next to a dystopia. It's a bit like being French and reading about sunak's latest budget

 

[flecc]

Zelenskyy offered just as much before the war started

Your memory is very defective. Zelenskyy only offered open defiance at the outset, saying he would not budge in any way. It was only after three weeks of war and the destruction that he finally made the first concession, saying that he recognised Ukraine could never be be NATO member.

The remaining two indications of possible concession were announced only yesterday, so for you to say he offered as much at the outset is completely untrue.

Putin's mistake was in that he bet too much. He went for regime change in Kiev. Had he stayed away from the North and concentrated on the Azov sea shore, winning a corridor by negotiations would have been a dead cert.

Agreed, and as I posted from even before the war started. And as I also posted this war or any chance of it could have been avoided by concessions almost 20 years ago or even 7 years ago.

But it was not just Russia making a mistake, NATO made a complete mess too with mixed messages. Remember the very long period of the "exercises" between Russia and Belarus, witb the West thinking "will he, won't he" about invasion? That was Putin assessing whether NATO intended to get involved.

That NATO leaders, including Biden, were already saying they would not get involved in that external to NATO war was a big mistake, since it gave the go ahead for Putin's attack. A NATO message instead that an invasion would be serious enough for NATO to consider involvement would have frightened off Putin, since he would never have risked tackling NATO. There would just have been the announcement that the exercises were completed.
.

 

[Woosh]

Your memory is very defective. Zelenskyy only offered open defiance at the outset, saying he would not budge in any way.

your memory is no better than mine.

quote from wiki:

During the second build-up, Russia issued demands to the US and NATO, including a legally binding arrangement preventing Ukraine from ever joining NATO, and the removal of multinational forces stationed in NATO's Eastern European member states.[275] Russia threatened an unspecified military response if NATO continued to follow an "aggressive line".[276] These demands were widely interpreted as being non-viable; new NATO members in Central and Eastern Europe had joined the alliance because their populations broadly preferred to move towards the safety and economic opportunities offered by NATO and the EU, and their governments sought protection from Russian irredentism.[277] The demand for a formal treaty preventing Ukraine from joining NATO was also seen as unviable by Western officials as it would contravene the treaty's "open door" policy, although NATO showed no desire to accede to Ukraine's requests to join.[278]

It was clear enough that EU and NATO memberships are both unlikely in the foreseeable future.

 

[flecc]

Ukraine will join nato

Zelensky has firmly said that Ukraine can never be a member of NATO. It was his first concession three weeks after the war started

Russia is an archaic artefact of a bygone oppressive time.

Now with China a long term domestic ally with combining populations, Russia in their form of what they call communism will be around for a very long time yet.

You've evidently not lived in Finland.

How strange they think of themselves as one of the world's most contented nations, and others agree.
.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Zelensky has firmly said that Ukraine can never be a member of NATO. It was his first concession three weeks after the war started



Now with China a long term domestic ally with combining populations, Russia in their form of what they call communism will be around for a very long time yet.



How strange they think of themselves as one of the world's most contented nations, and others agree.
.

Trolling and deliberate misquoting. Quelle surpris.

 

[flecc]

your memory is no better than mine.

quote from wiki:

During the second build-up, Russia issued demands to the US and NATO, including a legally binding arrangement preventing Ukraine from ever joining NATO, and the removal of multinational forces stationed in NATO's Eastern European member states.[275] Russia threatened an unspecified military response if NATO continued to follow an "aggressive line".[276] These demands were widely interpreted as being non-viable; new NATO members in Central and Eastern Europe had joined the alliance because their populations broadly preferred to move towards the safety and economic opportunities offered by NATO and the EU, and their governments sought protection from Russian irredentism.[277] The demand for a formal treaty preventing Ukraine from joining NATO was also seen as unviable by Western officials as it would contravene the treaty's "open door" policy, although NATO showed no desire to accede to Ukraine's requests to join.[278]

It was clear enough that EU and NATO memberships are both unlikely in the foreseeable future.

You are being totally dishonest.

Look at what I said and you quoted:

"Zelenskyy only offered open defiance at the outset, saying he would not budge in any way."

Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

My memory of Zelenskyy's response was entirely accurate and he was widely praised for his defiance, including in this thread.
.

 

[Woosh]

You are being totally dishonest.

Look at what I said and you quoted:

"Zelenskyy only offered open defiance at the outset, saying he would not budge in any way."

Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

My memory of Zelenskyy's response was entirely accurate and he was widely praised for his defiance, including in this thread.
.

Whose memory is defective?
Before the war started, there were negotiations between NATO and Russia, not between Ukraine and Russia.
The BBC reported extensively on these negotiations and the situation at the border of Ukraine well before the war started.
In my previous post, I meant that zelenskiy has accepted on TV, before the invasion, that EU membership is not certain and would take a long time, NATO membership depends on NATO acceptance, which is another way of saying 'not in the foreseeable future'.
Zelenskiy wants to be seen as the side wanting peace and pay for it. However, he did not offer any more now than he did before the war.
Zelenskiy stood up to Putin because he had plenty of assurances from the West that we'll support him and that may be foolish with hindsight but you tried quite hard to trash Zelenskiy which he does not deserve.