War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

https://www.presidentti.fi/en/address-by-president-of-the-republic-of-finland-alexander-stubb-at-the-support-ukraine-summit/

[Axm Donrac]

Russia's already had tons of operations in the Caucasus, where was all the U.S. aid for Georgia? The U.S. has sent ten times more to Ukraine than they had to Georgia, and the result will be nearly the same. Russia gains territory or some puppet republics, while the other country survives and moves towards the EU so that this doesn't happen again. The truth is, America's main focus isn't on Russia, a crumbling oligarchy trying to piece an empire back together. Putin sees that his web will crumble when he dies, but rather than facing his issues of succession, he's conquering weaker nations in a pathetic attempt at bringing back Russia to "Glory." He doesn't understand that repatriation won't solve anything. It's like the old soviet union: the outside republics were holding down Russia. Instead of looking at Putin, the U.S. should be focusing on threats like china, an Aggressive superpower which has already economically taken over much of the world. War means nothing but death, destruction, and economic devastation. See how China's managed to stay out of war? That's how they're preserving their economy. While they may not be openly shooting at their neighbors, they're simply using money against them. Look at Africa. Nearly all the newer infrastructure was built by China. Why? Well, it isn't out of the goodness of their hearts. They're influencing these nations to control them and impose their Mandate of Heaven.

[Octavious]

https://www.presidentti.fi/en/address-by-president-of-the-republic-of-finland-alexander-stubb-at-the-support-ukraine-summit/

It's an interesting speech. Beginning by reminiscing about the glory days when Finland and the Wehrmacht marched together against Stalin in WWII, talking some deluded fantastical nonsense about Ukraine fully winning the war, and finishing off with a series of conditions to impose on Russia as if they were a defeated force that we can dictate terms to.

It sounds good, but Stubb and reality don't seem to be on the best of terms.

And I know I've said it before but it's really worth saying a few times because it's easy to forget. The War of Continuation is where Finland was standing shoulder to shoulder with the actual Nazis

[Klaus klauts]

And credit where credit's due they have done an amazing job. It has cost them dearly, it has killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, destroyed countless homes, but they have become one of the most impressive warrior nations on Earth and achieved more than anyone had any right to expect. And it is extremely unfair that all that pain and sacrifice will get them is survival as a nation reduced in size. But the alternative is a lot more destruction, a lot more death, a lot more heartache, and a significant chance of defeat. So the compromise is that Ukraine lives to tell the tale of when it stood alone against the full might of Russia and held the line. They lose Crimea and a chunk of territory they're frankly better off without, and they gain stories of Ukraine's finest hour with a full compliment of national heroes and a fast tracked EU membership.

And they will try to be happy with that, because it's by far the least worst of their likely outcomes.

That is how this story ends, and whatever you think of Trump he has done more to get us there than any other politician.

My brother in Christ, as was stated before, nobody is denying, or at least I am not, that the Ukraine might loose territory in a peace. But the Ukraine can not lose so much of its territory WITHOUT ANY SECURITY GUARANTEES. Such a peace is useless, even harmful, because it gives the Russians time. Time they need to refill their stockpiles, and to stabilize their economy. This time will harm the Ukraine, because nobody will invest into their economy, because it will be clear that the Russians will attack again soon.

You are complaining about "dictating conditions to Russia, as if their force was defeated". I complain about the very same thing, I complain about "dictating conditions to the Ukraine, as if their force was defeated". The Ukrainian force was not defeated at any point.

(in contrast for example to the British army in WW2 (Dunkirk), and the British only could take up the fight thanks to US support btw.. Even the soviets relied heavily on US support.)

You are looking at the current map, that shows the front line, and you see: "Russia is clearly winning, they have sacrificed 100000 soldiers, and moved the front 200m" Is that your idea of a win? You should know, that annihilated villages are worthless, can even be harmful, because they are hard for the Russians to defend, since there is no cover. Meanwhile, the Ukraine is attacking actual strategic targets, like weapon depots, munitions trains, and refineries.
This is the reason why Russia wants a ceasefire: So that they get time to rebuild these critical infrastructures the Ukraine has successfully destroyed, and this is why, a peace without security guarantees is not only useless, but also very harmful for the Ukraine, as I have stated multiple times now.

[Octavious]

You are complaining about "dictating conditions to Russia, as if their force was defeated". I complain about the very same thing, I complain about "dictating conditions to the Ukraine, as if their force was defeated". The Ukrainian force was not defeated at any point.

(in contrast for example to the British army in WW2 (Dunkirk), and the British only could take up the fight thanks to US support btw.. Even the soviets relied heavily on US support.)

I am confused by your example. If you are referring to the war, you are correct that Ukraine stands undefeated. If you are referring to battles such as Dunkirk, Ukraine has been defeated on multiple occasions. Yes, Britain would have struggled to fight on without access to US resources and would probably have been forced to sue for peace... I'm not sure how that point aids your argument however.

You are looking at the current map, that shows the front line, and you see: "Russia is clearly winning, they have sacrificed 100000 soldiers, and moved the front 200m" Is that your idea of a win?

Apparently nobody reads what I actually write. I have said quite clearly that the war has been disastrous for Russia. My entire argument is based on the idea that Russia has taken a massive beating and wants a way out. How can you not have picked up on this basic point? But Russia can take its beating longer than Ukraine can, and the status quo situation is Russia slowing advancing until Ukraine finally breaks.

As for guarantees, they don't exist. But by far the best argument against a future Russian invasion is a million veteran Ukrainian soldiers who are the best in Europe. Europe can add some extra promises and put some boots on the ground and some planes in the sky and fast track EU membership, and that will be another argument. The Yanks will invest billions and there will be thousands of Yank civilians, and this will be another argument against invasion. But the Yanks are not going to promise to fight Russia if they invade Ukraine. They might suggest very strongly that they'll take robust action to defend their interests, but they are not going to talk themselves into a corner where they are forced to act.

That is the best Ukraine are going to get. There is no such thing as a guarantee, and the best arguments against another Russian invasion will be themselves and the deal with the Yanks. The Europeans... frankly I have my doubts that they'll be able to do everything they should. I think that there will be a lot of opposition to EU membership, and I think the offer of boots on the ground will turn out to be far fewer boots than Ukraine is hoping for. But we shall see

[Jamiet99uk]

In a speech in the past 24 hours, J.D. Vance ruled out an imminent US ground invasion of Mexico.

So at least there's something.

[Klaus klauts]

This is simply untrue, Octavious.

In a peace without security guarantees, the Ukraine will get weaker, because there will be no foreign investments, while Russia gets stronger. If somebody here has refused to pick up a core argument, it was you.

The Russians do not care about veteran soldiers. They will kill as many of their own people as it takes, they do not care. This is a centuries old Russian military tradition at this point.

[Octavious]

In a peace without security guarantees, the Ukraine will get weaker, because there will be no foreign investments, while Russia gets stronger. If somebody here has refused to pick up a core argument, it was you.

America is not going to give any, and there's nothing anyone in Europe can do to change that, so if it is true that Ukraine needs American security guarantees you are effectively admitting defeat before you start.

So you'd best hope that you're wrong, eh?

They will kill as many of their own people as it takes, they do not care.

Ah, the good old "Russians are monsters who don't give a shit about the lives of even their own people" myth, popularised by many a Hollywood film including the extremely entertaining but highly inaccurate Enemy at the Gates.

Newsflash for you: Russians are human too. It is worth reminding yourself of this simple fact if your the sort of person inclined to forget it.

[Klaus klauts]

Newsflash for you: Nazi-Germans are human too. It is worth reminding yourself on the simple fact, that this did not stop them to kill 6 million Jews in concentration camps. Chinese communists are human too, this did not stop them to kill tens of millions of their own people. The British are human too, this did not stop them to enslave millions for centuries. The Japanese are humans too, this ...

Being human does not prevent very cruel behaviour -- it enables it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

"My entire argument is based on the idea that Russia has taken a massive beating and wants a way out"

So give them maximum concessions now?

The other half of your argument is that Ukraine is a fake country with a bad leader that should have been totally bowled over by Russia having never received any international support.

If you're frustrated that people don't understand your position it's because it changes wildly between posts.

[Octavious]

"My entire argument is based on the idea that Russia has taken a massive beating and wants a way out"

So give them maximum concessions now?

No. Give them a way out that is practicable.

The other half of your argument is that Ukraine is a fake country with a bad leader that should have been totally bowled over by Russia having never received any international support.

No, it isn't. I've never said Ukraine is a fake country. That is entirely a figment of your imagination. It does have a poor leader, yes. The international support should have been preventative and applied early. We failed to do so. After this failure what we did was throw money and bullets at the problem in a blind panic, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of displacements, and cities in ruins. This reaction to our earlier failure was a mistake that has greatly contributed to a great evil.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

We should have never been involved with the corrupt ex-Soviet backwater with the comedian figurehead in the first place, and if we hadn't Ukrainian cities would be a lot less ruined and the Ukrainian people a lot less dead. But it is what it is, and we got very much involved, and we (including the USA) have very much not abandoned Ukraine.

The international support should have been preventative and applied early. We failed to do so. After this failure what we did was throw money and bullets at the problem in a blind panic, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of displacements, and cities in ruins. This reaction to our earlier failure was a mistake that has greatly contributed to a great evil.

Which is it?

The international community should have rallied around Ukraine early and robustly deterred Russia? Or the international community should have "never been involved in the first place"?

You seem to flip between these two diametrically opposed views whenever it suits your most recent argument. That makes it very hard to understand what your actual view is and what you're advocating.

[Octavious]

The top comment refers to the panicked rushing of arms and money to Ukraine after the recent invasion, which I believed was clear from the context of that part of the discussion. Perhaps the words "first place" could have been better chosen, as with Russia, Ukraine, and western involvement you can take "first place" back a hell of a long time if you really wanted to. In this case it was the first part of the major invasion a few years ago.

The bottom comment refers to the more distant situation, after the initial Russian invasion that took the world by surprise and saw Crimea fall to Russia along with the two breakaway regions. That was the opportunity to take more robust action and put peacekeepers on the ground who would have made Russia think twice about trying anything more.

There is no flip flopping. There are different arguments for very different situations.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I agree that earlier and clearer deterrence would have been preferable.

But what makes deterrence now, in 2025, mistaken?

You seem happy that the US has abandoned (yes, abandoned) Ukraine. You correctly assess the EU won't provide anything like the same guarantees. If deterrence is good, why shouldn't the US backstop what's left of Ukraine and draw a line in the sand re: further Russian expansion? Why should the mistakes in 2014 and 2022 tie our hands at this point?

[Octavious]

You seem happy that the US has abandoned (yes, abandoned) Ukraine

I'm not sure how I can be simultaneously happy about something and require convincing that it's a thing.


As it happens, I can't. I do not believe the US has abandoned Ukraine, and my expectation is still that an agreement will be made that ties the US to long term investment in Ukraine. This will give the Yanks a stake in Ukraine and a reason to defend it's interests there, without explicitly being tied to a commitment to fight Russia which the Russians would find extremely hard to accept.

The Yanks and the Ukrainians themselves will make the largest contribution to the reasons why Russia should not invade again.

[Jamiet99uk]

This week's latest development: Trump has remembered that Japan exists, and asks why Japan is not required to maintain a large army, navy, and air force to help defend the United States.

"Who makes these deals!?" he asked, with a tone of incredulity.

Christ on a bike. Japan's pacifism was enforced on them at the end of WW2 by the United States!

Is this genuine ignorance or performative stupidity?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This week's latest development: Trump has remembered that Japan exists, and asks why Japan is not required to maintain a large army, navy, and air force to help defend the United States.

"Who makes these deals!?" he asked, with a tone of incredulity.

Christ on a bike. Japan's pacifism was enforced on them at the end of WW2 by the United States!

Is this genuine ignorance or performative stupidity?

Trump has indeed said some crazy things that betray an ignorance of history, global affairs, economics, etc

But it's not right to say that Japan's military weakness in 2025 is solely, nor mainly, a reflection of the pacifism imposed on them ~75 years ago.

For decades the US and others have been encouraging (nay, begging) Japan to bolster its military. That Japan has only taken baby steps in this direction reflects domestic political squabbles rather than an ongoing US imposition.

Japan really should have a bigger military. Japan's ongoing reluctance to invest in defense is a major burden on its allies, but especially the US.

[Jamiet99uk]

This week's latest development: Trump has remembered that Japan exists, and asks why Japan is not required to maintain a large army, navy, and air force to help defend the United States.

"Who makes these deals!?" he asked, with a tone of incredulity.

Christ on a bike. Japan's pacifism was enforced on them at the end of WW2 by the United States!

Is this genuine ignorance or performative stupidity?

Trump has indeed said some crazy things that betray an ignorance of history, global affairs, economics, etc

But it's not right to say that Japan's military weakness in 2025 is solely, nor mainly, a reflection of the pacifism imposed on them ~75 years ago.

For decades the US and others have been encouraging (nay, begging) Japan to bolster its military. That Japan has only taken baby steps in this direction reflects domestic political squabbles rather than an ongoing US imposition.

Japan really should have a bigger military. Japan's ongoing reluctance to invest in defense is a major burden on its allies, but especially the US.

The current treaty dates from 1960 and has not been amended since then.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The treaty is not a meaningful constraint on Japan's military buildup.

The US has been openly advocating that Japan increase its military since the 1950s.

The meaningful constraint is the pacifist movement within Japan's domestic politics.

[Octavious]

A few under reported comments

We know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are

- US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, in a private meeting in Brussels with his European counterparts last month

The Ukrainian people desire peace more than anyone in the world and believe that the personal role of President Donald Trump and his peacekeeping efforts will be decisive in the swift cessation of hostilities and the achievement of peace for Ukraine, Europe, and the entire world.

-Joint statement by the leaders of the Ukrainian Rada a few days ago

I stand with the Ukrainian people who live in Ukraine and who want someone smart to finish this war and save the nation

-Iuliia Mendel, Zelensky’s former press secretary on X, 3rd March

If a hypothetical presidential election were held in Ukraine in February 2025 with Kyrylo Budanov, Head of Defence Intelligence of Ukraine, and Valerii Zaluzhnyi, former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and now Ambassador to the UK, as candidates, current President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would take second place.

-Ukrainska Pravda using data from the Socis opinion poll which suggests a 15-20% approval rating for Zelensky