Russia mobilises - consequences and reactions

[two sheds]

Why wouldn't he? He considers Ukraine to be part of Russia. He invades and takes over part of it, why wouldn't he rebuild and take over the rest?

Eta: we're talking here about right at the beginning, before Ukraine was supplied with weapons by the west. He'd have gone in relatively unopposed, as he did.

 

[nogojones]

Why do you assume no good faith negotiations possible?

I seem to recall that in the first month or so there where quite a few negotiations that went nowhere and that it was down to the Russian side saying "No, we haven't achieved our objectives" that were constantly being adjusted, to grab as much as possible at pretty much any cost regardless of civilian or Russian forces loss.

Any local ceasefire agreements were discarded within hours of being discussed and it was fairly routine for civilian convoys to be shelled after corridors for their evacuation had been agreed,

Some grain ships were allowed to sail, but that was within the context of the Black Sea fleet loosing its flagship and the possibility of NATO or other forces escorting them. Plus I imagine there was also pressure from non-aligned countries that would have suffered from the blockade.

I can see why people consider there is a lot of bad faith in Putin's word.

 

[Pickman's model]

The grain shipments didn't have Putin giving up territory. He's shown he'd refuse to do that by annexing them - irreversibly.

How could Ukraine give up their territory as part of the negotiations? Putin would clearly then just occupy those bits and do his preparations to take over the rest.

It's going to be years if ever before Russia can embark on another military adventure with even the feeblest hope of success, be the target Ukraine or Mongolia or wherever. So please can we lose this future Russian bogeyman bit, it's just there to scare children

 

[nogojones]

Is there certainty about this? Why?

Well there was that initial invasion of Crimea. Then the invasion of Donbas and Luhansk. Then after promissing that he had no intention of invading the rest of Ukraine, he went and did it. Plus there's all that greater Russia blather that he constantly comes out with. These all strongly hint at to what his longer term aims are/were. How much of what he is able to achieve is now questionable, but given that he's prepared to throw large chunks of the civilian population into a meat grinder, it doesn't look like he's given up on his dream quite yet.

 

[Spymaster]

Why do you assume no good faith negotiations possible?

In the couple of months preceding the invasion, Russian forces were building-up on the borders and in Belarus, and Putin and his spokespeople were swearing blind that no invasion was imminent and that it was all simply 'military exercises'.

They followed that up with an invasion which has caused the greatest loss of life in Europe since WW2.

Why would anyone think that they're capable or willing to negotiate in good faith?

 

[two sheds]

It's going to be years if ever before Russia can embark on another military adventure with even the feeblest hope of success, be the target Ukraine or Mongolia or wherever. So please can we lose this future Russian bogeyman bit, it's just there to scare children

Indeed, they seem royally fucked now, but I'm talking about before Ukraine was armed by the west.

 

[RD2003]

In the couple of months preceding the invasion, Russian forces were building-up on the borders and in Belarus, and Putin and his spokespeople were swearing blind that no invasion was imminent and that it was all simply 'military exercises'.

They followed that up with an invasion which has caused the greatest loss of life in Europe since WW2.

Why would anyone think that they're capable or willing to negotiate in good faith?

Because at some point they have to. All wars end when one or both sides plump for negotiation.

 

[cesare]

Because at some point they have to. All wars end when one or both sides plump for negotiation.

"Peace for our time"

 

[Spymaster]

Because at some point they have to. All wars end when one or both sides plump for negotiation.

But they often need to be forced to "have to".

The Japanese didn't plump for negotiations in 1945 until two atom bombs had been dropped on them.

 

[RD2003]

But they often need to be forced to "have to".

The Japanese didn't plump for negotiations in 1945 until two atom bombs had been dropped on them.

They are being forced.

 

[Rob Ray]

You have to basically ignore the last 20 years of Putinism to think that good faith negotiations were possible. The man was Mr Chechnya and did his first presidential land grab (Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia) three months after taking office ffs. His entire history is one of brutal military expansionism.

 

[RD2003]

You have to basically ignore the last 12 years of Putinism to think that good faith negotiations were possible. The man did his first land grab (Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia) three months after taking office ffs.

Good faith or not, they could, and should, have been prolonged.

 

[teqniq]

The negotiations over getting grain ships out worked for instance.

The day after the deal was signed the Russians bombed Odessa port facilities and shortly after that they killed the principle guy who ran the grain business in Ukraine. Putin wouldn't know good faith if it shat on his face. This is a man who routinely has his own people who have fallen out of favour killed with lame excuses such as 'fallen out of a window', 'fallen down stairs' etc. Get a fucking grip.

 

[Spymaster]

They are being forced.

They are (potentially) now, but you were referrring to negotiating with them far earlier in the conflict, after they'd shown themselves to be utterly capricious and untrustworthy.

Nobody in their right mind would have thought negotiation would have taken place in good faith.

 

[existentialist]

The day after the deal was signed the Russians bombed Odessa port facilities and shortly after that they killed the principle guy who ran the grain business in Ukraine. Putin wouldn't know good faith if it shat on his face. This is a man who routinely has his own people who have fallen out of favour killed with lame excuses such as 'fallen out of a window', 'fallen down stairs' etc. Get a fucking grip.

I don't know, because - thank heavens - I am not inside Putin's head, but I think these lame "excuses" are very much in the vein of "Oh dear, I seem to have spilled your pint, whatever are you going to do about that, eh? Eh? Eh?".

 

[Rob Ray]

Good faith or not, they could, and should, have been prolonged.

There was nothing to prolong. He attacked Ukraine having sworn blind he wouldn't. It's not possible to prolong anything when action is being taken regardless of what you happen to say.

 

[Ax^]

A boring prick who, if he called somebody else a boring prick, would find the editor on his tail, frowning sternly.

don't worry this thread really all about you and nothing else..

 

[existentialist]

Good faith or not, they could, and should, have been prolonged.

 

[maomao]

The Japanese didn't plump for negotiations in 1945 until two atom bombs had been dropped on them.

This is a myth, they were on their knees and ready to sue for peace and the US government knew it. They wanted to test their magic bombs in the field and put the shit up every other country in the world. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lost their lives, mostly in horrific pain over the course of several days, for this.

 

[seventh bullet]

But they often need to be forced to "have to".

The Japanese didn't plump for negotiations in 1945 until two atom bombs had been dropped on them.

Feelers were put out by the Japanese to begin negotiations way before the atom bombings, which were rebuffed by the Americans. They wanted to battle test their new toys.

 

[Spymaster]

This is a myth, they were on their knees and ready to sue for peace and the US government knew it. They wanted to test their magic bombs in the field and put the shit up every other country in the world. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lost their lives, mostly in horrific pain over the course of several days, for this.

You're half correct here.

 

[maomao]

You're half correct here.

Which bit are you claiming I'm wrong about?

 

[seventh bullet]

You're half correct here.

It was later admitted that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki served no strategic purpose nor to quicken a surrender. The myth of the atom bombs being used with a heavy heart to save more lives, both Allied and Japanese, is alive and well though.

 

[Spymaster]

Which bit are you claiming I'm wrong about?

That they were ready to sue for peace. There's no undisputed evidence of that although I'll give you that it's a well established revisionist theory. You are correct that there were ulterior motives for dropping the bombs.

 

[seventh bullet]

The myth is deliberately meant to muddy how it's looked at. There is no undisputed evidence, etc. The bombs were virtuous.

 

[Spymaster]

It was later admitted that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki served no strategic purpose nor to quicken a surrender.

By whom?

 

[nogojones]

Because at some point they have to. All wars end when one or both sides plump for negotiation.

Or when their population revolts and strings their leaders up.

 

[seventh bullet]

By whom?

Google it. I'm on the shitter.

 

[Supine]

Google it. I'm on the shitter.

Great tag line

 

[seventh bullet]

That's not a get out BTW, it's an interesting subject.