1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • A crap article on ending the War

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 29 14:43:01 2022
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-seeds-have-been-sown-to-end-the-war-in-ukraine/ar-AA15MJtq

    The first mistake....include everyone and their mother in negotiations.

    Nonsense. Each added party makes the negotiation exponentially more complicated and tedious.
    First step is get the framework of agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Nothing else is worth discussing and just clouds the issue without that.
    Once that is achieved the other dominoes will fall into place.

    Frankly I don't see any real basis for negotiations. Putin still wants his territory and Ukraine wants their post Soviet Union borders.
    So the war will continue for now.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Dec 30 08:49:16 2022
    On 12/29/22 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    Frankly I don't see any real basis for negotiations. Putin still wants his territory and Ukraine wants their post Soviet Union borders.
    So the war will continue for now.

    The NYT is getting roasted on twitter for its "Hard-Line Positions by
    Russia and Ukraine Dim Hope for Peace Talks" headline.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-talks.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 30 08:34:02 2022
    On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 6:49:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/29/22 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    Frankly I don't see any real basis for negotiations. Putin still wants his territory and Ukraine wants their post Soviet Union borders.
    So the war will continue for now.
    The NYT is getting roasted on twitter for its "Hard-Line Positions by
    Russia and Ukraine Dim Hope for Peace Talks" headline.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-talks.html

    No account...no access. But I too have little hope for any peace talks at the moment.
    For one...I think Putin is too weak to engage in peace talks without putting himself at risk.
    I also think he doesn't want to end his era with a failure in Ukraine though it seems too late
    for that worry.
    Meanwhile Ukraine hopes to restore its territorial integrity to post soviet borders and
    that may take a very long war yet to come.
    So I have little hope for peace in the coming year at least.
    The next big change may be Putin's death. And I'm not sure that's going to stabilize anything over there.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Dec 30 14:16:55 2022
    On 12/30/22 10:34 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 6:49:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/29/22 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    Frankly I don't see any real basis for negotiations. Putin still
    wants his territory and Ukraine wants their post Soviet Union
    borders. So the war will continue for now.
    The NYT is getting roasted on twitter for its "Hard-Line Positions
    by Russia and Ukraine Dim Hope for Peace Talks" headline.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-talks.html

    No account...no access.

    Accessible in 'reader view,' but the headline was the point for equating Ukraine's right to exist with whatever Russia wants.

    But I too have little hope for any peace talks at the moment. For
    one...I think Putin is too weak to engage in peace talks without
    putting himself at risk. I also think he doesn't want to end his era
    with a failure in Ukraine though it seems too late for that worry.
    Meanwhile Ukraine hopes to restore its territorial integrity to post
    soviet borders and that may take a very long war yet to come. So I
    have little hope for peace in the coming year at least. The next big
    change may be Putin's death. And I'm not sure that's going to
    stabilize anything over there.

    A successor might be content with restoring Russia's economy in return
    for conceding Ukraine's borders and right to exist but who knows who
    that would be at this point.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 30 15:08:02 2022
    On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:16:57 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/30/22 10:34 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 6:49:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/29/22 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    Frankly I don't see any real basis for negotiations. Putin still
    wants his territory and Ukraine wants their post Soviet Union
    borders. So the war will continue for now.
    The NYT is getting roasted on twitter for its "Hard-Line Positions
    by Russia and Ukraine Dim Hope for Peace Talks" headline.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-talks.html

    No account...no access.
    Accessible in 'reader view,' but the headline was the point for equating Ukraine's right to exist with whatever Russia wants.

    Yeah....wanting your country to not be the victim of invasion is hardly "Hard-Line" in anyone's reasonable view.

    But I too have little hope for any peace talks at the moment. For
    one...I think Putin is too weak to engage in peace talks without
    putting himself at risk. I also think he doesn't want to end his era
    with a failure in Ukraine though it seems too late for that worry. Meanwhile Ukraine hopes to restore its territorial integrity to post
    soviet borders and that may take a very long war yet to come. So I
    have little hope for peace in the coming year at least. The next big
    change may be Putin's death. And I'm not sure that's going to
    stabilize anything over there.
    A successor might be content with restoring Russia's economy in return
    for conceding Ukraine's borders and right to exist but who knows who
    that would be at this point.

    Many analysts think Putin will appoint a successor in the coming months
    as his imminent death becomes more apparent.
    None think his appointee isn't going to be any different beyond possibly even more hard line.
    The question is....will the rest of the ruling elite go along with Putin's choice.
    If the successor can't assume control the likelihood of the Russian Federation remaining intact comes into question.
    And that could get really ugly.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 30 16:59:49 2022
    It's getting murky in the Diseased Dimension where dumbass scottw
    pretends to hold court.

    Many analysts think Putin will appoint a successor in the coming months
    as his imminent death becomes more apparent.

    Four penalties in one gibber-lie. Well done, Your Lowness.
    First, you are not allowed to refer obliquely to the voices in your
    head as "many analysts". Your own rules of misbehavior require
    you to provide at least a blind link.
    Second, Putin may or may not be at death's door. Not only did
    you not attribute that claim to someone who might actually know,
    but we who inhabit the Real World do know, in fact, that no such
    discovery has been reported by a reliable source.
    Third, there's no extant evidence that Putin's autocratic rule
    can simply be assumed by one of his allies. In the Real World,
    "most analysts" believe that if Putin departs, a free-for-all would ensue. Fourth, you are a bloviating shithead who still denies that
    Trump is a criminal. To us inhabitants of the Real World, that
    means either you're either demented or retarded.
    (I admit my fourth point is mostly inferential.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Dec 31 09:34:21 2022
    On 12/30/22 5:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:16:57 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/30/22 10:34 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 6:49:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/29/22 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    Frankly I don't see any real basis for negotiations. Putin still
    wants his territory and Ukraine wants their post Soviet Union
    borders. So the war will continue for now.
    The NYT is getting roasted on twitter for its "Hard-Line Positions
    by Russia and Ukraine Dim Hope for Peace Talks" headline.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-talks.html

    No account...no access.
    Accessible in 'reader view,' but the headline was the point for equating
    Ukraine's right to exist with whatever Russia wants.

    Yeah....wanting your country to not be the victim of invasion is hardly "Hard-Line" in anyone's reasonable view.

    This new consensus is an improvement on some early commenters who felt
    Ukraine should capitulate swiftly to avoid even worse losses.

    But I too have little hope for any peace talks at the moment. For
    one...I think Putin is too weak to engage in peace talks without
    putting himself at risk. I also think he doesn't want to end his era
    with a failure in Ukraine though it seems too late for that worry.
    Meanwhile Ukraine hopes to restore its territorial integrity to post
    soviet borders and that may take a very long war yet to come. So I
    have little hope for peace in the coming year at least. The next big
    change may be Putin's death. And I'm not sure that's going to
    stabilize anything over there.
    A successor might be content with restoring Russia's economy in return
    for conceding Ukraine's borders and right to exist but who knows who
    that would be at this point.

    Many analysts think Putin will appoint a successor in the coming months
    as his imminent death becomes more apparent.

    Yes, the Putin health question is open to speculation. There's not a lot
    of good commentary about central Asia but the potential for conflict is certainly present.

    None think his appointee isn't going to be any different beyond possibly even more hard line.
    The question is....will the rest of the ruling elite go along with Putin's choice.
    If the successor can't assume control the likelihood of the Russian Federation
    remaining intact comes into question.
    And that could get really ugly.

    Indeed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 31 22:17:16 2022
    On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 7:34:24 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/30/22 5:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:16:57 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/30/22 10:34 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 6:49:19 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 12/29/22 4:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    Frankly I don't see any real basis for negotiations. Putin still
    wants his territory and Ukraine wants their post Soviet Union
    borders. So the war will continue for now.
    The NYT is getting roasted on twitter for its "Hard-Line Positions
    by Russia and Ukraine Dim Hope for Peace Talks" headline.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/world/europe/ukraine-russia-peace-talks.html

    No account...no access.
    Accessible in 'reader view,' but the headline was the point for equating >> Ukraine's right to exist with whatever Russia wants.

    Yeah....wanting your country to not be the victim of invasion is hardly "Hard-Line" in anyone's reasonable view.
    This new consensus is an improvement on some early commenters who felt Ukraine should capitulate swiftly to avoid even worse losses.

    Can't say there is or ever has ever been a consensus but early capitulation
    was widely viewed as inevitable....either by agreement or full military defeat. The only consensus I can think of is that everyone was wrong on Russian overwhelming capability.


    But I too have little hope for any peace talks at the moment. For
    one...I think Putin is too weak to engage in peace talks without
    putting himself at risk. I also think he doesn't want to end his era
    with a failure in Ukraine though it seems too late for that worry.
    Meanwhile Ukraine hopes to restore its territorial integrity to post
    soviet borders and that may take a very long war yet to come. So I
    have little hope for peace in the coming year at least. The next big
    change may be Putin's death. And I'm not sure that's going to
    stabilize anything over there.
    A successor might be content with restoring Russia's economy in return
    for conceding Ukraine's borders and right to exist but who knows who
    that would be at this point.

    Many analysts think Putin will appoint a successor in the coming months
    as his imminent death becomes more apparent.
    Yes, the Putin health question is open to speculation. There's not a lot
    of good commentary about central Asia but the potential for conflict is certainly present.
    None think his appointee isn't going to be any different beyond possibly even more hard line.
    The question is....will the rest of the ruling elite go along with Putin's choice.
    If the successor can't assume control the likelihood of the Russian Federation
    remaining intact comes into question.
    And that could get really ugly.
    Indeed.

    Triggering a faux war with NATO to solidify Russia Nationalism behind the newbie struggling to establish and maintain power is an idea I've seen put forth.
    Putin is already claiming they're really at war with the US.
    Russia knows Nato wouldn't want a wide scale war and would most likely keep it on a tit for tat level which would be just perfect for their home state propagandists.
    On the other hand I've read it would take about 3 weeks of Nato air operations over
    Ukraine to completely destroy Russian storage and supply lines in Ukraine practically assuring Ukraine complete victory.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sun Jan 1 08:48:20 2023
    On 1/1/23 12:17 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Triggering a faux war with NATO to solidify Russia Nationalism behind the newbie struggling to establish and maintain power is an idea I've seen put forth.
    Putin is already claiming they're really at war with the US.
    Russia knows Nato wouldn't want a wide scale war and would most likely keep it
    on a tit for tat level which would be just perfect for their home state propagandists.
    On the other hand I've read it would take about 3 weeks of Nato air operations over
    Ukraine to completely destroy Russian storage and supply lines in Ukraine practically assuring Ukraine complete victory.

    While NATO is indeed war-averse, breaking energy dependence reduces the
    need to accommodate Russia.

    Tit-for-tat fits with the speculation that the possibility of the US
    supplying long range missiles in retaliation is preventing Russia from importing similar weapons from Iran.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 1 10:12:36 2023
    On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 6:48:26 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 1/1/23 12:17 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Triggering a faux war with NATO to solidify Russia Nationalism behind the newbie struggling to establish and maintain power is an idea I've seen put forth.
    Putin is already claiming they're really at war with the US.
    Russia knows Nato wouldn't want a wide scale war and would most likely keep it
    on a tit for tat level which would be just perfect for their home state propagandists.
    On the other hand I've read it would take about 3 weeks of Nato air operations over
    Ukraine to completely destroy Russian storage and supply lines in Ukraine practically assuring Ukraine complete victory.
    While NATO is indeed war-averse, breaking energy dependence reduces the
    need to accommodate Russia.

    Tit-for-tat fits with the speculation that the possibility of the US supplying long range missiles in retaliation is preventing Russia from importing similar weapons from Iran.

    I've read nothing indicating the US is considering supply of long-range missile offensive weapons
    to Ukraine.
    Meanwhile...

    " Recent US intelligence assessments also suggested that Iran is preparing to ship Fateh-110 (300 km) and Zolfaghar ballistic missiles (700 km) to Russia for use in Ukraine. "

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Jan 2 09:22:23 2023
    On 1/1/23 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 6:48:26 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 1/1/23 12:17 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Triggering a faux war with NATO to solidify Russia Nationalism
    behind the newbie struggling to establish and maintain power is
    an idea I've seen put forth. Putin is already claiming they're
    really at war with the US. Russia knows Nato wouldn't want a wide
    scale war and would most likely keep it on a tit for tat level
    which would be just perfect for their home state propagandists.
    On the other hand I've read it would take about 3 weeks of Nato
    air operations over Ukraine to completely destroy Russian storage
    and supply lines in Ukraine practically assuring Ukraine complete
    victory.
    While NATO is indeed war-averse, breaking energy dependence reduces
    the need to accommodate Russia.

    Tit-for-tat fits with the speculation that the possibility of the
    US supplying long range missiles in retaliation is preventing
    Russia from importing similar weapons from Iran.

    I've read nothing indicating the US is considering supply of
    long-range missile offensive weapons to Ukraine.

    You must have missed this from Reuters:

    https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/100-mile-strike-weapon-weighed-ukraine-arms-makers-wrestle-with-demand-sources-2022-11-28/

    The speculation was the threat of supplying long range missiles to
    Ukraine was meant to deter Russia from importing similar missiles from Iran

    Meanwhile...

    " Recent US intelligence assessments also suggested that Iran is
    preparing to ship Fateh-110 (300 km) and Zolfaghar ballistic missiles
    (700 km) to Russia for use in Ukraine."

    That's what would be deterred.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 2 09:25:35 2023
    On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 7:22:26 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 1/1/23 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 6:48:26 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
    On 1/1/23 12:17 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Triggering a faux war with NATO to solidify Russia Nationalism
    behind the newbie struggling to establish and maintain power is
    an idea I've seen put forth. Putin is already claiming they're
    really at war with the US. Russia knows Nato wouldn't want a wide
    scale war and would most likely keep it on a tit for tat level
    which would be just perfect for their home state propagandists.
    On the other hand I've read it would take about 3 weeks of Nato
    air operations over Ukraine to completely destroy Russian storage
    and supply lines in Ukraine practically assuring Ukraine complete
    victory.
    While NATO is indeed war-averse, breaking energy dependence reduces
    the need to accommodate Russia.

    Tit-for-tat fits with the speculation that the possibility of the
    US supplying long range missiles in retaliation is preventing
    Russia from importing similar weapons from Iran.

    I've read nothing indicating the US is considering supply of
    long-range missile offensive weapons to Ukraine.
    You must have missed this from Reuters:

    https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/100-mile-strike-weapon-weighed-ukraine-arms-makers-wrestle-with-demand-sources-2022-11-28/

    Yes I did. Not quite the range of Iranian missiles but I like the idea of cheap and plentiful.

    The speculation was the threat of supplying long range missiles to
    Ukraine was meant to deter Russia from importing similar missiles from Iran
    Meanwhile...

    " Recent US intelligence assessments also suggested that Iran is
    preparing to ship Fateh-110 (300 km) and Zolfaghar ballistic missiles
    (700 km) to Russia for use in Ukraine."
    That's what would be deterred.

    Continued discussion of deterrence strikes me as silly.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)