Ukraine & Russia — just as an idea, maybe some 3rd party nation swings a face-saving deal ? ? [yes, distasteful but . . . ]

[Multicolored Lemur]

unless Ukraine agrees to stay neutral

and it does not help that before the war, we in the U.S. said that Ukraine has the right to join NATO

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

head person for UN: António Guterres

For small nations, the UN can enforce things. But for large nations, the UN is advisory, coordinating, facilitative. And that second path can help for things like public health, human trafficking, etc.

But if a big country is involved in a war as a combatant, the best the UN can do I guess is to swing a deal.

PS I am glad that Mr. Guterres was in there trying.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

This is an ad for the 2015 Tim Hanks movie Bridge of Spies. And he played a high profile lawyer, who was just a private citizen, who was asked to help negotiate the release of Francis Gary Powers who had been shot down by the Soviets in 1960.

My point being, if this citizen-lawyer had failed, no great loss of face for the United States.

And so,

maybe ask some U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for such-and-such [who the public has never heard of] to help, for example, India swing a peace deal.

And yes, I think the current Indian government with Modi as PM is an ally of Putin.

And if this doesn’t happen,

well, this hypothetical Deputy Secretary of State lives to fight another day and no great loss of face for the United States.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

But I ask people to think about 1965 when we in the United States thought war in Vietnam* was winnable. And it ended up lasting another 10 years and spilling over to Cambodia.

Seeing the latest, I think the track we're heading on is a tit-for-tat war. The winner will be whoever has any infrastructure left standing. I think Russia is in position to win that type of war since most of the conflict is being fought on Ukrainian territory. Even if Ukraine succeeds is gaining back some land, but they're gaining back land that is completely destroyed. I suspect if Putin can't have Ukraine, he'd be okay just levelling the place.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

and it does not help that before the war, we in the U.S. said that Ukraine has the right to join NATO

Might soon be zero parties involved, other than the two nations at war with each other, the longer the war goes on. War fatigue and the reality of limited resources might start setting in...

Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, as the public splits over whether the US has already done enough to assist Ukraine.

Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.

Source: CNN

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

The winner will be whoever has any infrastructure left standing. I think Russia is in position to win that type of war since most of the conflict is being fought on Ukrainian territory.

This strikes me as a somber analysis, also realistic.

I hope we find a better way, if just by luck if nothing else.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Source: CNN “Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding.”

Ouch.

In addition, it’s moving in the direction of less support [although this decline might bottom out at some point].

But solid steady eddie-type U.S. politicians might decide, Preventing future Russian aggressive is enough of a value to go against public support?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Ouch.

In addition, it’s moving in the direction of less support [although this decline might bottom out at some point].

But solid steady eddie-type U.S. politicians might decide, Preventing future Russian aggressive is enough of a value to go against public support?

Yes, I would say so. Preventing future Russian aggression is probably one of the strongest reasons to continue supporting Ukraine. It's a way to show Russia that they are not going to have an easy time because of their actions.

On the other side, some might see Ukraine as being too little too late to win anything. Their counteroffensive hasn't been going as good as planned despite being given all the support that they've received. Both sides will have to concede that a peace deal is the only good path going forward.

In my personal view, I think this is the most politicized war I've seen in my lifetime. I can't say that the West if fully committed to having Ukraine win because they are not supplying Ukraine with the most effective weapons. There seems to be a fear of how Russia would retaliate, so we hold back on what we'd send Ukraine to keep from crossing Putin's red line. We started out with very strong sanctions against Russia just to have some of them being rolled back so we can cut deals with them to allow Ukraine to ship grain, etc. IN a real fight, you wouldn't play around with your opponent. You go for the knockout, otherwise you risk being knocked out yourself.