And there's then there's the record of the "Reluctant Sheriff":
Violated 1991 agreement on NATO not moving "one inch" toward Russia Rendered Budapest Agreement Null and Void Violated UN Charter in Iraq Violated UN Charter in Serbia Violated ABM Treaty Violated INF Treaty Violated Open Skies Treaty Violated Iran Nuclear Deal Violated Minsk Agreement (confirmed by Merkel, Hollande) Violating One China Agreement
But 11th time's a charm, so the USA should be trusted by any agreement we sign from here on.
As I noted before, nobody should trust any country based on their word. Not the United States. Not Russia. Not anyone. That's why agreements with no enforcement mechanism mean nothing, and why your claim that you support a negotiated settlement when you don't support any enforcement mechanism is simply an endorsement of Russian aggression.
Second, once the fighting eventually stops, how do you propose to deter Russia from renewing its attacks? You don't want Ukraine armed. You don't want other countries promising to use their militaries on Ukraine's behalf. You've endorsed Russia's call for NATO to withdraw defensive weapons from eastern Europe.
You're not advocating with a negotiated settlement, you're advocating for Russian victory and Russian freedom of action for whatever war it wishes to start in the future. And as shown in the discussion of Crimea, you believe Russia is justified in this.
Sure, Russia violated its agreement with Ukraine when the Soviet Union broke up, and its agreement with Ukraine when Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons. But third time's a charm, so Russia should be trusted to abide by any agreement not to invade again.
And there's then there's the record of the "Reluctant Sheriff":
Violated 1991 agreement on NATO not moving "one inch" toward Russia Rendered Budapest Agreement Null and Void Violated UN Charter in Iraq Violated UN Charter in Serbia Violated ABM Treaty Violated INF Treaty Violated Open Skies Treaty Violated Iran Nuclear Deal Violated Minsk Agreement (confirmed by Merkel, Hollande) Violating One China Agreement
But 11th time's a charm, so the USA should be trusted by any agreement we sign from here on.
That's a very revealing response, Paul. You keep disregarding that what matters is what the Ukrainian people can rely on, in any peace agreement with Russia.
Daniel L Davis a reliable source? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
He's as pro-Putin as it gets. He pretty much parrots the NATO redline
Care to show any critique he has made in regards tor the absolute destruction of a sovereign nation - and the need to kill all nazis?
Do you really think the threat of NATO expansion was a just reason for the war Vlad has conducted and justifies the slaughtering of tens of thousands of his own troops?
Do you really think the threat of NATO expansion was a just reason for the war Vlad has conducted and justifies the slaughtering of tens of thousands of his own troops?
A key quote from John Quigley, who Paul seems to approve of (though can't be 100% certain since it's never clear if Paul actually reads and understands what he cites):
"...clusters of Russian speakers in newly independent states on Russia’s periphery was a recipe for conflict. The situation was reminiscent of how the stranding of populations of German speakers after the World War I collapse of the German and Austrian empires helped bring about World War II"
This is revealing and troubling in a couple of ways. First, it seems to imply that Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland and Austria was justified. Second, as I noted, this same situation -- territory formerly held by the Russian empire, and which has significant Russian speakers today -- exists not just in Ukraine, but throughout much eastern Europe. If Paul believes that Russia has a legitimate Ukrainian territory, then that same logic applies to many other countries as well. No wonder the eastern Europeans rushed to join NATO.
But, as Paul reminded us, not only does he believe those countries should not have joined NATO, he believes that in 2020, as Russia was threatening to invade Ukraine, NATO should have withdrawn militarily from these vulnerable nations.
Paul said that I "[haven't] read or retained Russia's proposals for European security arrangement". Here's what Russia's proposal was:
"The Russian proposal — immediately dismissed by NATO officials — came in the form of a draft treaty suggesting NATO should offer written guarantees that it would not expand farther east toward Russia and halt all military activities in the former Soviet republics, a vast swath of now-independent states extending from Eastern Europe to Central Asia."
It's probably true that NATO expansion was among the reasons for Russia's assault -- because NATO membership is a real obstacle to Russia seizing territory. Putin had no intention of letting Ukraine follow in the footsteps of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, et al, and so launched what he hoped would be a fast and decisive blow at a time he thought Ukraine would be isolated with little support from its allies.
It's trivially true, after all, that if the former Soviet states never escaped the grip of Russia, Russia would have no need of wars to try and regain them.
⚡️Before replacing PMCs with Akhmat in Bakhmut, Kadyrov invited Wagner fighters to Chechen units
"The Wagner PMC has very good, courageous, necessary, necessary people, including us, because they know the area. If you [PMC fighters] stay with us, I promise you that we will give…
Eventually the truth behind this man’s unwavering support for Putin will come out. I wonder if he would have been carrying on with his propaganda if his wife was Ukrainian and not from Tbilisi.
I wasn't aware that Kadyrov's private army was ranked among the elite military units of the world. More likely, Kadyrov is happy to send hundreds or thousands of his men to death in order to curry favor with Putin.
Prigozhin's publicity campaign yields results: Wagner to get weapons/ammo, and Surovikin is named as Wagner-MOD liaison. I can only speculate on the level of Kremlin intervention here. Shoigu and Gerasimov still retain the means to play their long game & isolate their rivals. https://t.co/XaiK0UtnOR
And there's then there's the record of the "Reluctant Sheriff":
Violated 1991 agreement on NATO not moving "one inch" toward Russia Rendered Budapest Agreement Null and Void Violated UN Charter in Iraq Violated UN Charter in Serbia Violated ABM Treaty Violated INF Treaty Violated Open Skies Treaty Violated Iran Nuclear Deal Violated Minsk Agreement (confirmed by Merkel, Hollande) Violating One China Agreement
But 11th time's a charm, so the USA should be trusted by any agreement we sign from here on.
As I noted before, nobody should trust any country based on their word. Not the United States. Not Russia. Not anyone. That's why agreements with no enforcement mechanism mean nothing, and why your claim that you support a negotiated settlement when you don't support any enforcement mechanism is simply an endorsement of Russian aggression.
That agreement says, "The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine".
Is his argument that the United States isn't living up to the Budapest Agreement? Should the United States take a more active role in preserving "the existing borders of Ukraine"? I could understand if the people of Ukraine felt that the U.S. wasn't living up to the agreement, but of course that pales when compared to Russia's total violation of the agreement.
That agreement says, "The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine".
Is his argument that the United States isn't living up to the Budapest Agreement? Should the United States take a more active role in preserving "the existing borders of Ukraine"? I could understand if the people of Ukraine felt that the U.S. wasn't living up to the agreement, but of course that pales when compared to Russia's total violation of the agreement.
His argument is that the Revolution of Dignity was a US-directed coup, and that this voided the Budapest Memorandum. It's not a good argument, both because the Revolution of Dignity was a Ukrainian action, not a US one, and because even if we steelman his argument and pretend that it was a US coup there's no reason that would nullify the Budapest Memorandum.
ETA -- and of course we've seen in his arguments regarding Crimea that he never believed all that much in the idea of respecting Ukraine's borders in the first place.
His argument is that the Revolution of Dignity was a US-directed coup, and that this voided the Budapest Memorandum. It's not a good argument, both because the Revolution of Dignity was a Ukrainian action, not a US one, and because even if we steelman his argument and pretend that it was a US coup there's no reason that would nullify the Budapest Memorandum.
ETA -- and of course we've seen in his arguments regarding Crimea that he never believed all that much in the idea of respecting Ukraine's borders in the first place.
That argument is so bad faith, it undercuts any pretense of sincerity in claiming that a simple peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia would take care of any of Ukraine's concerns.
That argument is so bad faith, it undercuts any pretense of sincerity in claiming that a simple peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia would take care of any of Ukraine's concerns.
I won't try to hazard a guess how much Paul believes the arguments he makes. And in the end it doesn't really matter -- he may very well sincerely believe himself to desire a just a lasting peace, but his actual position is objectively one that supports current and future Russian warmaking. Whether or not he's sincere doesn't change the fact that he's wrong.
... he may very well sincerely believe himself to desire a just a lasting peace, but his actual position is objectively one that supports current and future Russian warmaking. ...
Or, as the saying goes, "Why not both?" - the "path to peace" is the one where Russia gets to reassemble the Czarist empire, and anyone opposed to that is a "warmonger".
I know you're being rhetorical, but I think there's still some value in pointing out why a policy of appeasement wouldn't lead to peace.
First, in the territory controlled by Russia, the Putin regime has become increasingly oppressive and authoritarian. By some measures, Putin's regime is "peaceful" -- no outright armed conflicts such as there had been in Chechnya. However, any significant challenge to the regime is dealt with violently and harshly -- political opponents "fall out windows" or are poisoned or irradiated or are arrested and sent to penal colonies. Putin's Russia is a country of informers and spies, where attracting the attention of the authorities or even of a jealous neighbor can have severe consequence. It's a trend that has only accelerated since the 2020 invasion. I don't know that I would agree that "peace" and "repression" are synonyms.
Second, in the territories grasped at but not yet controlled by Russia, the assumption seems to be that absent outside aid no one in those countries will resist. I think that's a poorly-grounded assumption. If Ukraine were not receiving outside military aid, for instance, Russia would likely be occupying a lot more territory, but that means the war would be more one of guerrilla resistance than the clash of conventional armed forces. And we've seen from how Russia has acted in the territories that it does occupy how brutally it treats the people under occupation. A Ukraine fighting on its own would not be one at peace, but one where Bucha and Mariupol were repeated many times over a far wider territory. I would not call that peace either.
And, as John Quigley notes and Paul endorses, one of Russia's motivations here has been the situation of territory formerly under Russian control that has significant Russian speakers. This is a situation that exists across much of central Asia and eastern Europe. A Russia free to rampage across Ukraine is one also free to do the same in Moldova, in Estonia, in Latvia. This, too, is not peace.
In the 1930s, Hitler began to pursue his territorial ambitions by demanding the return of territories that Germany had lost as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, such as the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. When these demands were not met, Hitler annexed Austria in 1938 and then invaded Czechoslovakia in 1939, claiming that the German-speaking population in these areas was being oppressed.
Hitler also made claims to the territories of Poland, Lithuania, and the Soviet Union, which he considered to be part of Germany's rightful sphere of influence.
----------------------------------------
One thing Hitler couldn't claim that Vlad can - is the critical role that he's ridding the world of nazis. One thing very few people discuss - even though it has been front and center as one of the prime justifications of this "special operation".
I love Vlad's rhetoric: “Civilization again finds itself at a decisive, critical moment. A real war has again been launched against our motherland,” Putin told the assembled soldiers and guests.
"We believe that any ideology of superiority is abhorrent, criminal and deadly by its nature. However, the Western globalist elites keep speaking about their exceptionalism, pit nations against each other and split societies, provoke bloody conflicts and coups, sow hatred, Russophobia, aggressive nationalism, destroy family and traditional values which make us human. They do all that so as to keep dictating and imposing their will, their rights and rules on peoples, which in reality is a system of plundering, violence and suppression. ...
"Boundless ambition, arrogance and impunity inevitably lead to tragedies. This is the reason for the catastrophe the Ukrainian people are going through. They have become hostage to the coup d’état and the resulting criminal regime of its Western masters, collateral damage in the implementation of their cruel and self-serving plans."
Sounds like Uncle Vlad needs to do a better job forcing those 300,000 conscripts to the front line. They must still be getting superior training first - this could take awhile - right?
Or he need to hire another army - Wagner sounds a bit fed up.
"We believe that any ideology of superiority is abhorrent, criminal and deadly by its nature. However, the Western globalist elites keep speaking about their exceptionalism, pit nations against each other and split societies, provoke bloody conflicts and coups, sow hatred, Russophobia, aggressive nationalism, destroy family and traditional values which make us human. They do all that so as to keep dictating and imposing their will, their rights and rules on peoples, which in reality is a system of plundering, violence and suppression. ...
"Boundless ambition, arrogance and impunity inevitably lead to tragedies. This is the reason for the catastrophe the Ukrainian people are going through. They have become hostage to the coup d’état and the resulting criminal regime of its Western masters, collateral damage in the implementation of their cruel and self-serving plans."
When someone doesn't recognize their own ideology, they are in a cult or leading a cult. Here, Putin's words are pure projection.
Russian authorities will launch construction of a village outside of Moscow for conservative-minded Americans and Canadians next year, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency reported ThursdayRussia has for years positioned itself as a bastion of "traditional" values in contrast with Western liberalism as its relations with the West have deteriorated over its 2014 annexation of Crimea and 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Russian authorities will launch construction of a village outside of Moscow for conservative-minded Americans and Canadians next year, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency reported ThursdayRussia has for years positioned itself as a bastion of "traditional" values in contrast with Western liberalism as its relations with the West have deteriorated over its 2014 annexation of Crimea and 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
As I noted before, nobody should trust any country based on their word. Not the United States. Not Russia. Not anyone. That's why agreements with no enforcement mechanism mean nothing, and why your claim that you support a negotiated settlement when you don't support any enforcement mechanism is simply an endorsement of Russian aggression.