Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
Under the plan I have devised, [blah blah blah, same old Russia-appeasing crap]
Click to expand...

Your plan would lead to the destruction of Ukraine as a country and Ukrainians as a people, and Ukrainians are smart enough to know that. This is why they'll fight to the death now if that's what it takes, and that's what makes your plan so idiotic.
 
jeremyp said:
What do you mean by the people's republic of Donbass[sic]. Are you suggesting it should consist only of the bit that Russia currently controls, or all of Donbas?
Click to expand...
I believe there are two possible spellings for Donbass (Donbas or Donbass).

Under my plan, Russia wouldn't be allowed to keep any of their conquests since February 24, because I don't see this Putin's invasion as legitimate or legal.
jeremyp said:
So there would have to be a treaty because, if Russia retreats from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Ukraine will have control of the source of water fro the Crimean canal. How would such a treaty be enforced bearing in mind Russia is totally untrustworthy and without honour?
Click to expand...
I don't see the need for a treaty for just letting the water flow in the Canal, without blocking it with a dam (think about rivers of France flowing into Belgium).

Untrustworthy and without honour?
I frankly don't think this serious crisis will be solved by bashing and insulting Russia every five minutes (or perhaps even more often). Better to say something like "Our Russian colleagues are of the opinion that ...". Remaining polite.
jeremyp said:
Why? I can see why such a peace treaty might lead to lifting of the most recent sanctions, but there's no need to lift the ones put in place because Russia illegally annexed Crimea.
Click to expand...
Lifting the sanctions would be both the job and the duty of those who imposed it in the first place. It is saddening if they enjoy that kind of things really that much.

jeremyp said:
Don't spend too much time on the question because we know that the Ukrainians want their country back and nothing less will be acceptable. They will also want to be sure Russia can't invade again. Does your peace plan include NATO membership for Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Already replied (recently):
Michel H said:
Under the plan I have devised, Russia would only keep the two people's republics of Donbass, and Crimea, that's it. Ukraine would remain neutral, water would flow in the North Crimean Canal for your friends the Russia-loving Crimeans, and sanctions would be lifted.
Click to expand...

One question that people will perhaps ask more often is "What could go even worse for Ukraine?".
 
eerok said:
Your plan would lead to the destruction of Ukraine as a country and Ukrainians as a people, and Ukrainians are smart enough to know that. This is why they'll fight to the death now if that's what it takes, and that's what makes your plan so idiotic.
Click to expand...
There is no need for dramatizing and dying. Ukrainians could just have their mostly good lives of the beginning of this year back.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Putin made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Belarus is even worse equipped and prepared than Russia. He'll be pretty desperate not to send his own forces to certain defeat but probably more than willing to provide all support he can to the Russians if they want to have a second go from his territory. That may be what we're seeing.

Anyway, Lukashenko hasn't staged a PR event giving away the entire plan by showing the campaign map to the press. Not this time. Not yet, anyway.
 
Michel, you say your plan means Russia doesn't keep any conquests since Feb 24th but then you appear to contradict yourself and say it does get Donbas. Quite aside from the problem that handing over Donbas to Russia is unacceptable to Ukraine, I don't understand what you mean.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Michel, you say your plan means Russia doesn't keep any conquests since Feb 24th but then you appear to contradict yourself and say it does get Donbas. Quite aside from the problem that handing over Donbas to Russia is unacceptable to Ukraine, I don't understand what you mean.
Click to expand...
Where did you see me say Russia gets the whole of Donbas? (it doesn't).
 
Michel H said:
Better to say something like "Our Russian colleagues are of the opinion that ...". Remaining polite.
Click to expand...

Remaining polite, then, our Russian colleagues are of the opinion that some things are true, when in reality, as verifiable fact, those things are not true. Since they are unlikely to be that mistaken, the polite conclusion is that Russian leadership, and their enablers, are liars. Liars, liars, pants on fire. They have shown themselves to be wholly untrustworthy, as evidenced. This has been repeatedly demonstrated... with all due respect.

The price of certain 'peace plans' is too high. Better to fight.

It's not just one voice, though...

For anyone calling for negotiations, what is the practical basis? Take, for example, Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Is it part of Ukraine? Ukraine and the International Community say yes. Putin says no. Putin hasn't signalled any readiness to say anything other than no, yet. What is the practical middle ground between 'yes' and 'no?' Where is the probabilistic fuzziness between those two states? It's a legit question on my part. There may be a third way that I'm not seeing.

Another example, related to annexing those regions is Putin's strategic need for a land bridge to Crimea (and, let's face it, Sevastopol, because it's not like Putin is overly concerned with Crimean Tatars). Ukraine and the Internationa Community say he can't have it. A peace plan that doesn't grant him the land bridge doesn't fulfill one of his strategic needs, anyway. So, what is the middle ground between 'need it,' and 'can't have it?'
 
Jimbo07 said:
Remaining polite, then, our Russian colleagues are of the opinion that some things are true, when in reality, as verifiable fact, those things are not true. Since they are unlikely to be that mistaken, the polite conclusion is that Russian leadership, and their enablers, are liars. Liars, liars, pants on fire. They have shown themselves to be wholly untrustworthy, as evidenced. This has been repeatedly demonstrated... with all due respect.

The price of certain 'peace plans' is too high. Better to fight.

It's not just one voice, though...

For anyone calling for negotiations, what is the practical basis? Take, for example, Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Is it part of Ukraine? Ukraine and the International Community say yes. Putin says no. Putin hasn't signalled any readiness to say anything other than no, yet. What is the practical middle ground between 'yes' and 'no?' Where is the probabilistic fuzziness between those two states? It's a legit question on my part. There may be a third way that I'm not seeing.

Another example, related to annexing those regions is Putin's strategic need for a land bridge to Crimea (and, let's face it, Sevastopol, because it's not like Putin is overly concerned with Crimean Tatars). Ukraine and the Internationa Community say he can't have it. A peace plan that doesn't grant him the land bridge doesn't fulfill one of his strategic needs, anyway. So, what is the middle ground between 'need it,' and 'can't have it?'
Click to expand...
(1) The Zaporizhzhia Oblast is part of Russia's recent conquests. So, in my opinion, this is a territory which should be fully returned to Ukraine (whether that is really doable or no, I don't know).
(2) A land bridge for Crimea is no longer indispensable if water flows normally in the Canal, with no threat by the Ukrainians, and with the Kerch bridge on the other hand.
 
Michel H said:
(2) A land bridge for Crimea is no longer indispensable if water flows normally in the Canal, with no threat by the Ukrainians, and with the Kerch bridge on the other hand.
Click to expand...

That's one take. I don't know if Russia agrees. Surrendering the Sea of Azov coast makes the bridge vulnerable in the future. Certainly, Putin hasn't signalled any readiness to go down that road.
 
Craig4 said:
A) You don't have a plan. Foreign ministers, world leaders, major NGOs and their staffs have plans. You have an idea that can't get past the horse-holders of the horse-holders.

B) You are right that Crimea rejects the unlawful occupation of all its territory by the orcs. This includes Crimea.

C) No one is going to do what you want. We know the orcs and their fellow-travelers want sanctions lifted but that won't happen until Russia returns to their 2013 borders.
Click to expand...

Oh, he has a plan. It's called total surrender to Putin.
 
eerok said:
Your plan would lead to the destruction of Ukraine as a country and Ukrainians as a people, and Ukrainians are smart enough to know that. This is why they'll fight to the death now if that's what it takes, and that's what makes your plan so idiotic.
Click to expand...

The Ukraininas remember the Holodomor very well....
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Why on Earth would Ukraine agree to withdraw to the February boundaries? What kind of lunatic would accede to a Foreign power unilaterally declaring the annexation of parts of their country and invading?
Click to expand...

Oh good Michel you're back. Care to answer?
 
Michel H said:
Where did you see me say Russia gets the whole of Donbas? (it doesn't).
Click to expand...

I take "Donbas" to mean Donetsk plus Luhansk. I take "the two peoples republics" to mean DPR plus LPR, which is the same territory.

If you meant something different, perhaps you would explain.
 
Craig4 said:
They adopt your "plan". That would be worse than continued resistance.
Click to expand...

Michael H has never heard of the Holdomar the mass starvation of Ukraine by the Russians , apparently......
Ah, for the good old days of Uncle Joe Stalin...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom