Zobel said:

---

You can't even have a discussion without calling me a Russian sympathizer and accusing me of pro-Russia talking points. Yet all I've stated are facts and acknowledged that I want a swift victory for Ukraine, support our continued weapons transfers, and think Russia is in the wrong.

You're so emotionally invested you can't even begin to have a conversation.

And you still won't answer. How many millions of lives and billions of dollars? You won't answer because you know that despite your bold font and your cool internet terms (wtf is sealioning??) there is a very ugly reality to a prolonged conflict.

Only siths speak in absolutes.

---

As many million lives as Ukraine is willing to spend to defend itself. It's their sacrifice and their call.

I'd be comfortable with doubling or even tripling our aid. Much of it is paying ourselves for weapons we give them, and it's a fraction of what we spent in the Iraq and Afghanistan without spilling our own blood.

Shouldn't you be pleading with Russians regarding how much blood and treasure they're willing to spend in their endeavor to steal from Ukraine, rather than those helping the country being invaded and stolen from?

Edit: If the millions of lives you refer to are the ones dependent on Ukrainian resources, then the answer is the same. Ukraine would rather keep its resources rather than give them to Russia, and Russia is the one keeping those resources bottled up, burned, and purloined.

The aid we spend should be spent with a purpose. "A free Ukraine" is an unacceptable purpose in and of itself from a US foreign policy perspective. The money we are spending is not to ensure a sovereign Ukraine, it is to oppose Russia on several levels

• to prevent them from ever engaging NATO forces and pulling us into a direct confrontation
• to reduce their global influence and ability to wage war
• to oppose their securing a geographic foothold in the Bessarabian gap
• to reduce their ability to project power in a region of interest to us
• to reduce their economic influence over EU by repositioning ourselves as an energy provider

Helping Ukraine because they were invaded is nice, but we didn't come to the aid of Georgia this way, or Ukraine in 2014. The difference is not one of principal but of furthering our interests.

I'd be comfortable with increasing our aid to whatever level is necessary to secure those foreign policy objectives. Especially since in this case we are doing it without risking American lives.

Quote:

---

Shouldn't you be pleading with Russians regarding how much blood and treasure they're willing to spend in their endeavor to steal from Ukraine, rather than those helping the country being invaded and stolen from?

---

A negotiated settlement by definition means neither party wins unconditionally. Once we accomplish our foreign policy objectives - and I would say that we are approaching diminishing returns in that regard - we should be looking for ways to end the conflict and reduce collateral damage to our own economy and innocent lives.

Absent direct intervention on our part, securing some kind of peace deal is probably the fastest way to do that.

Zobel said:

---

The aid we spend should be spent with a purpose. "A free Ukraine" is an unacceptable purpose in and of itself from a US foreign policy perspective. The money we are spending is not to ensure a sovereign Ukraine, it is to oppose Russia on several levels

• to prevent them from ever engaging NATO forces and pulling us into a direct confrontation
• to reduce their global influence and ability to wage war
• to oppose their securing a geographic foothold in the Bessarabian gap
• to reduce their ability to project power in a region of interest to us
• to reduce their economic influence over EU by repositioning ourselves as an energy provider

Helping Ukraine because they were invaded is nice, but we didn't come to the aid of Georgia this way, or Ukraine in 2014. The difference is not one of principal but of furthering our interests.

I'd be comfortable with increasing our aid to whatever level is necessary to secure those foreign policy objectives. Especially since in this case we are doing it without risking American lives.

Quote:

---

Shouldn't you be pleading with Russians regarding how much blood and treasure they're willing to spend in their endeavor to steal from Ukraine, rather than those helping the country being invaded and stolen from?

---

A negotiated settlement by definition means neither party wins unconditionally. Once we accomplish our foreign policy objectives - and I would say that we are approaching diminishing returns in that regard - we should be looking for ways to end the conflict and reduce collateral damage to our own economy and innocent lives.

Absent direct intervention on our part, securing some kind of peace deal is probably the fastest way to do that.

---

I think that's a very reasonable argument Zobel.

I do not think we should demand Ukraine give any of its territory up in a negotiation. We saw that leading into ww2. It didn't work out then and probably won't now.

I think we must continue to help push Russia all the way back to Russia, or at least push until Russia can mount any sort of defense. At the current moment in the conflict, there is no incentive for Ukraine to cede anything.

I just don't buy either the notion that absent a negotiated settlement millions on earth will either starve or die in a nuclear fallout and, therefore, imo, so long as it is Ukrainian and Russian soldiers dying for their country, then keep at it until Ukraine is whole (which means Russia is broken for the next century)

I need to do more reading on the direct impact of this conflict on our economy, but my gut tells me it's overstated. Bad domestic policy is much more impactful.

I would guess that aggregate impact on the US economy is probably positive. But there are definitely places where it hurts us (semiconductors and iron, probably?)

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

I am not even saying Putin will make a deal. I'm not saying that Russia or Putin deserve anything. What I am saying is that we have already accomplished our objective and we are playing with house money now. I think we are foolish not to make a strong effort for a peace deal while we have the leverage and Putin is seeing defeat as a likely outcome. We can satisfy our interests of Russia being effectively neutered as a threat to expand while saving hundreds of thousands of soldiers lives and millions of other people's lives while saving the global economy. The window is open and we should absolutely go for it if we can get it.

---

As with our lack of knowledge as to exactly what aid is being provided to Ukraine, neither you nor I are privy to our communications with the Russians. I'm sure there have been many attempts to engage them in discussions, but these things are usually best handled when they aren't made public.

---

On that we do agree!

The southern parts have rights to the EEZs that are filled with more fossil fuels than the UAE. NATO will NOT allow Russia to have it.*






*without a fight.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I never tweet/do threads like this but a couple thoughts on Elon Musk’s Ukraine Opinions.

First up: his most recent tweet on the subject, in a reply to Lindsey Graham, is a fairly stunning admission that comes without any sort of mea culpa. https://t.co/ZLncOojBF1

— Pete Kiehart (@Kiehart) October 6, 2022

---

Elon says what I have said from the beginning, the first priority of the "special operation" was securing potable water to Crimea.

Ukraine cut them off, which is objectionably a human rights violation. The population of Crimea has reduced 60%+ over the years because of the water prohibition by the "virtuous" regime in Kiev.

It's a feint

Yeah, im laughing at you

Ukraine cut them off. Consider it an initial reaction to being invaded by little green men.

Sorry your feint lost.

The Debt said:

---

The southern parts have rights to the EEZs that are filled with more fossil fuels than the UAE. NATO will NOT allow Russia to have it.*






*without a fight.

---

Source KIIS survey 2014

"Do you support the idea, that your region should secede from Ukraine and join Russia? "

Zaporizhia region 17,5% rather no & 64% no
rather yes 4,0% or yes 2,2%

Kherson region 11,1% rather no 73,5% no
rather yes 2,5 or yes 1,0% pic.twitter.com/CJzYFd2Zxe

— Dietmar Pichler 🇪🇺🇺🇦 (@DietmarPichler1) October 6, 2022

"Do you support introduction of Russian troops into Ukraine?" pic.twitter.com/u9gG7EQnJr

— Dietmar Pichler 🇪🇺🇺🇦 (@DietmarPichler1) October 6, 2022

In Donbas there was an area ("DNR/LNR") controlled by RU🇷🇺 proxies. People within these territories and in government controlled areas were asked about their opinion in 2019.

Not even the residents flooded with RU-propaganda and disinfo for years answered in favor of separatism pic.twitter.com/8y0xN848OG

— Dietmar Pichler 🇪🇺🇺🇦 (@DietmarPichler1) October 6, 2022

Conclusion:

In 2014, there were different ideas in Ukraine about the geopolitical orientation, but this does not mean that there was a relevant separatist movement. After the Russian aggression in 2014/2022, Ukrainian identity & pro-European orientation developed significantly.

— Dietmar Pichler 🇪🇺🇺🇦 (@DietmarPichler1) October 6, 2022

If those polls are accurate then Musk's proposal sounds like a no brainer since all of the Eastern Provinces will just vote to be part of Ukraine.

In the end Musk is advocating for 2 things:

An end to the war.
Allowing the people to decide who governs them.

All the rest is distraction. Musk doesn't care if those provinces are EU/NATO or Russian he cares about the war ending and if possible to allow the people who actually live there to have a free election to decide their government. The Crimea issue is a little more complicated because of the water and the strategic value of Sevastapol but it's something that can be solved with negotiation.

The lunacy is the idea that we need to push Russia completely out and put Putin up on war crimes. The only way that happens is with nuclear war that will be 1000 times worse than any atrocities that have occurred in Ukraine. This isn't about what is morally right it's about dealing with reality just as we deal in reality in other parts of foreign policy with other countries. It also requires you to believe that Zelensky and Biden have pure and moral intentions which is a joke.

No. Ukraine has zero obligation to give any territory to anyone.

Russia needs to gtfo.

aggie93 said:

---

If those polls are accurate then Musk's proposal sounds like a no brainer since all of the Eastern Provinces will just vote to be part of Ukraine.

In the end Musk is advocating for 2 things:

An end to the war.
Allowing the people to decide who governs them.

All the rest is distraction. Musk doesn't care if those provinces are EU/NATO or Russian he cares about the war ending and if possible to allow the people who actually live there to have a free election to decide their government. The Crimea issue is a little more complicated because of the water and the strategic value of Sevastapol but it's something that can be solved with negotiation.

The lunacy is the idea that we need to push Russia completely out and put Putin up on war crimes. The only way that happens is with nuclear war that will be 1000 times worse than any atrocities that have occurred in Ukraine. This isn't about what is morally right it's about dealing with reality just as we deal in reality in other parts of foreign policy with other countries. It also requires you to believe that Zelensky and Biden have pure and moral intentions which is a joke.

---

This is one of the most ridiculous, delusional posts I've seen on the subject. Allow people to decide their government? Ukraine already did that in 1991.



Edit: found an even better map.

You cannot have a free and fair election in the occupied provinces. Musk doesn't know what he's talking about. Russia has forcibly deported people and imported Russians. They did this before, and they're doing it now. That's also ignoring the fact that Russia is on the UN Security Council and will ensure nothing happens that doesn't involve their preferred outcome in such a UN-led effort.

It is not lunacy to say that Russia should get completely out and that Putin should be brought up on war crimes. That's exactly what should happen.

It's time to stop faking concern about nuclear weapons. It has been explained over and over and over again why they are very unlikely to be used and how a Russian victory will lead to a a less safe world with regards to nukes, and that point gets blown past in favor of letting nuclear extortion be a viable strategy. Y'all know which way you want this to go, and you know why you do it. Your last sentence gives it away that this is more about your opinion of Biden than it is about Ukraine/Russia. I don't like the guy or his administration either, but let's not be myopic reactionaries.

y'all keep making the mistake of thinking about this as if it were a case being adjudicated between two people. it is not. Russia invaded Ukraine and this is "illegal" if there were a body that had authority over such things (there isn't). news flash: it doesn't matter. Russia keeps Ukraine if they can conquer it. Ukraine keeps it if they can defend it.

what Ukraine is obliged to do, or what Russia needs or doesn't need to do is irrelevant. If we decide we're done supporting Ukraine, they may be obligated by necessity to give territory. If we keep supporting them, Russia may be obligated by necessity to give territory.

Vae victus.

IMHO I think the recently annexed provinces are non-negotiable for Ukraine and it's allies. However, Crimea is a possible negotiating point along with reasonable access to fresh water. My preference is to allow Ukraine to steamroller Russian forces in Crimea but I can be pragmatic on that point if a number of other issues can be satisfactorily resolved.

Putin on trial for war crimes, while I think he is guilty of them, is a non-starter in my book and will cause needless death and destruction. Certainly we will yank the chain on Ukraine hard if they try to cross the pre-2014 Russian Federation border. In addition Zelenskyy's calls for preemptive strikes on Russian nuclear assets are a hard pass. That's just asking for a Russian NBC response.

I think most of us agree on the desire to see Russia degraded such that they pose no threat to NATO. We just differ on whether that has already occurred sufficiently to warrant cashing in our chips. I don't think we are there yet but I'm open to persuasion.