Russian invasion of Ukraine

Graham wrote:

Indeed. ‘Demilitarise’ is just shorthand for “hand it over and I will militarise it instead”.

Exactly. Everybody knows how it ended in Bosnian war and massacres that followed demilitarizing UN protected areas.

Graham wrote:

Conceding any ground to Putin in this regard essentially means handing Ukraine over to him and saying “yes, ok, you can have it as a puppet state”.

The current issue is not to concede any ground to Putin but to contain a massive spreading fire or if you wish a runaway nuke powerplant. You first contain it, put the fire out, THEN you go about making sure it won’t happen again. Same thing in an emergency, engine fire, first you put the fire out, lest it burns up your wing, then you think about landing and re-using the plane (which at the time of the emergency is totally irrelevant).

Right now, we have Putin destroying Ukraine and the longer he does so, the less there will be for the Ukrainians to get back to. Right now, we have for all practical purpose an economic war waged in retaliation by the West against Putin, who in turn has threatened to make war with all of Europe if it should interfere. Putin is more and more, due to his own fault certainly, with his back to the wall. Which in the tactical situation is both good and bad, the bad part clearly him being capable to play his nuclear card if he sees no way out for himself.

The EU has practically now accepted Ukraine as a candidate member. There have been speeches out of the EP which I have never expected, showing a unity never before expressed and resolve which is clear to show Mr Putin “In your face!” So where will they go once Kiew is taken and most probably their government killed or taken away? Declare war on Russia? In practice this has but in formality been done. And there is plenty of reason for it too.

The big risk is that Putin, in this situaiton, will put himself, or his perceived legacy, first and will not care about what happens after as he won’t be there to see it. What would you have expected would have happened in Berlin 1945 if there had been a “red button” in the Reichskanzlei? I think this is what the biggest threat is right now. That is why Udo and others are right, in order to contain a situation like this, the opponent needs to be left a way out which, at least momentarily, suggest that there may be a chance for him to save his behind or face. Otherwise the Europe we know may well cease to exist in a series of very bright flashes.

BTW According to Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in favor of guarantees from US, UK and Russia given to vouch its security. Now we can only speculate whether this invasion would happen or not should they kept it.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached which says that if Ukraine obtains NATO membership in the future, no NATO armed forces nor weapons would be stationed in Ukraine. Ukraine could maintain its own armed forces and the rest of NATO would still be obliged to defend it if it was attacked. But in the absence of any attack, no foreign NATO forces or equipment would be stationed there.

I appreciate that leaves many loopholes, but it give Putin a way to back down while still claiming success for his domestic audience and leaves Ukraine with its own freedoms.

What would happen to sanctions in that situation I don’t know, but it would at least leave Putin a way out.

dublinpilot wrote:

What would happen to sanctions in that situation I don’t know, but it would at least leave Putin a way out.

Well they are pushing for War Crimes at the Hague. I assume the Recorded Delivery letters are their way to Messrs Bliar, Brown, Straw, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld et al?

Oh and a letter, Special Delivery for the Saudi lot for a small place called Yemen..

I assume the current measures and sanctions would remain, less the ones that hurt us, which like the 10.45 train to Paddington will eventually come…Of course Rumsfelds would be awarded posthumously but he was at the gig…

dublinpilot wrote:

but it would at least leave Putin a way out.

Having Putin’s declaration of war on the Ukraine in mind I don’t see any way out. The mission has to be accomplished until the very end. There is left no room for any shade of grey in between…it’s totally stupid to commence war like that, because you are left without options. There is no plan B. Any pilot is smarter than that.

Graham wrote:

‘Demilitarise’ is just shorthand for “hand it over and I will militarise it instead”.

In this particular case, I agree, but generally speaking it is not true. Take e.g. the Åland islands that have been demilitarised since 1921. Only when Finland itself was at war did it station troops on the island.

dublinpilot wrote:

Perhaps a compromise could be reached which says that if Ukraine obtains NATO membership in the future, no NATO armed forces nor weapons would be stationed in Ukraine. Ukraine could maintain its own armed forces and the rest of NATO would still be obliged to defend it if it was attacked. But in the absence of any attack, no foreign NATO forces or equipment would be stationed there.

For Russia, that has been stressed many times, Ukraine joining NATO means total war with NATO.

The only way out was to declare Ukraine neutral for, say, 50 years.

But as many have said, I think this train has left the station. Russia will not back down. And some perpetrators right now there will not care if anything is left of the world if they get defeated.

As Budapest Memorandum shows (no using any type of weapon against Ukraine by signees, namely Russia, USA and UK), international agreements don’t mean much for Putin, so signing anything should be taken with great caution, expecting that he can break it at any moment under any excuse.