re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Putin's Asian Hawk Tuah tour with NKorea and Vietnam shows weakness. Vietnam and China aren't that friendly with each other at all. Russia recently gave up land to China on the Pacific Coast.

quote:

---

Holy shite, he is just one step away from getting it.

---

Still probably cannot make the connection

quote:

---

If you actually care to educate yourself a little this breaks down the peace talks pretty well

---

Thanks. But FYI, I am fairly well educated, actually; as well as versed on this topic.

I suggested you start with Ukrainian sources. You didn't.
*Noted.

The piece you cite is actually fairly accurate though, which is odd based on the bent of your post.
At least, it's fairly accurate until the final paragraphs, when it absurdly jumps off the rails.

E.g., Thirty (30) different times during the course of your article the authors accurately note the importance which Ukraine placed on postwar "security guarantees." In April 2022, it was Johnson's conveyance of US/UK refusal to issue such "security guarantees" that effectively scuttled the Ukraine-Russia peace talks.

Let's repeat that, because it is foundational to a correct understanding of the facts. It was Johnson's conveyance of US/UK refusal to issue security guarantees IAW a Ukraine-Russia peace agreement that effectively scuttled the talks.

Boris Johnson simultaneously sweetened the pot by offering Zelensky money, more money, much more money, more than much more money, along with weapons and support to "press Putin."

Those are simply the facts.

Johnson said so, publicly.
The Ukrainians said so, publicly.
Russia said so, publicly.
European and US diplomats said so, publicly.

So the UK/US did scuttle the April'22 peace talks. Claims that fact is, instead, some sort of Putin-driven disinformation are uninformed fantasy. Such claims are on the level of similar claims regarding Hunter's laptop.

I find it fascinating that, after a surprisingly reasonable, albeit understated, conveyance of the above, your piece absurdly concludes:

quote:

---

the claim that the West forced Ukraine to back out of the talks with Russia is baseless. It suggests that Kyiv had no say in the matter. True, the West’s offers of support must have strengthened Zelensky’s resolve, and the lack of Western enthusiasm does seem to have dampened his interest in diplomacy.

---

Let's break that conclusion down.

(1) No one is saying the West "forced" Ukraine to back out of the talks with Russia. That is gaslighting. What is being said is that the West's position left fruitful peace solutions virtually impossible. There was no point in Ukraine continuing them. Far from baseless, it's not even disputable.
(2) The "lack of Western enthusiasm" refers to the US/UK refusal to back security guarantees which were central to the peace talks. Calling that catastrophic refusal a "lack of enthusiasm" is akin to calling the Manson murders "misbehavior." To be clear, that "lack of enthusiasm" rendered any practical peace resolution impossible. At the point Zelenskyy recognized the UK/US "lack of enthusiasm," he knew the peace talks were done. It was then a matter of making the best of a bad situation.
(3) For Zelenskyy, the "West’s offers of support" (aka, money, more money, much more money, more than much more money, along with weapons) made the best of a bad situation, and though the deal was effectively scuttled by the US/UK refusal to back security guarantees, the "West’s offers of support" made things a little more palatable.

Those are are simply the facts. They're not a matter of my opinion, or yours, or some author's. They are facts. They are agreed upon by virtually all first hand parties in the equation.

Now then, reasonable opinions can certainly differ as to US/UK motivations behind those facts. IMO, the West saw a way to monetize a mechanism greased with the blood and entrails of Ukrainian youth to "press Putin." Others, like doubleb, surmise there was no practical way for the US to participate in Ukrainian security arrangements. If so, I surely wish we'd reached that edification prior to the Bucharest Summit.

quote:

---

NC_Tigah, I know that you don't actually care and you're incapable of learning anything

---

You'd do FAR better sticking to what you actually know, than imagining you know a thing about me. If what you are saying is accurate (it isn't), and the EU, the UK, Japan, and South Korea would willingly continue to finance Ukraine, all the better. If there is a path to Ukrainian victory (by whatever definition) without concomitant risk of starting WWIII, I'm all for it.

Far from not caring, I care very much. 45 nations are funding a defacto Russo-Ukrainian Hunger Games with no endpoint in sight. Who "wins" in such a scenario. Well the 45 nations paying for the win, of course. Who loses? Ukraine, and perhaps Russia.

So the irony is, while you claim to care about Ukrainians, I actually do care about them.

quote:

---

Everything I read said that we demanded "complete and unconditional surrender" at the Potsdam Conference.

---

"Unconditional" ... with the condition that the Japanese people would be allowed to choose their own government "after occupation and satisfactory demonstration of that Japan has renounced war for all time and has ceased to maintain armed forces for aggression."

This was understood to allow a continuation of the monarchy if Japan so chose. Hirohito was revered in Japan. MacArthur also saw strategic value of keeping the emperor in power for post-war stability.

Accordingly, the day after Nagasaki, the Japanese announced they would accept the Potsdam Declaration with the caveat the “declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as Sovereign Ruler,” implying a structure with Hirohito as supreme over the occupation commander and any occupation edicts. That proposal was rejected, but triggered back channel communications.

Informally, US officials like Secretary of State James Byrnes made it clear to Japanese diplomats that the emperor would be subject to the Allied occupation commander. This is where Hirohito was concomitantly informed MacArthur's occupation plans did not call the Emperor to be deposed, and the concept that, if cooperative during the occupation and helpful in reestablishing a peaceful Japan, Hirohito might remain as a titular monarch.

Meanwhile, Truman did not directly address Japan's offer. Instead, he publicly reemphasized unconditional surrender. Obviously after the occupation, technically by law the US could have jailed, tried, and executed Hirohito as there were no formal promises. Hirohito could have also been deposed into exile as was Kaiser Wilhelm. All of which assured his cooperation, and therefore Japan's.

quote:

---

Others, like doubleb, surmise there was no practical way for the US to participate in Ukrainian security arrangements. If so, I surely wish we'd reached that edification prior to the Bucharest Summit.

---

Unless the US guaranteed troops or nukes; how could the US guarantee the peace?
The Bucharest Agreement didn’t do it, right. A deal where Russia got a veto wouldn’t do it. That would be like a mini UN. A peace deal without US troops to stop the Russians would be like the Vietnam peace. Hollow.

Show me where I am wrong.

quote:

---

You're saying we had back channel communication with the Japanese via "diplomats". I've never seen this.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

When word of the “four conditions” offer spread to the handful of other leaders within the inner circle, several immediately confronted Kido with the argument that the allies would treat such a response as tantamount to a refusal to surrender. Sometime in the afternoon of August 9, the emperor agreed. That night an Imperial Conference was conducted. Key military members insisted that the war must continue. The Chief of the General Staff, Umezu, whose opinion the emperor respected, insisted that Soviet intervention was unfavorable, but did not invalidate Ketsu Go. After listening to extended debate, the emperor announced his support for the “one-condition” offer.

Then the story took another twist exposed by the new history. As communicated to the United States and its allies, the condition was phrased as acceptance of the Potsdam declaration “with the understanding that the said declaration does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as Sovereign Ruler.” As Japanese historians pointed out, and American State Department officials immediately recognized, this was not just a request for maintenance of a constitutional monarchy. This language actually set as the condition precedent to surrender that the allies agree to the supremacy of the emperor not only over any Japanese government, but over the commander of the occupation. In other words, any proposed reforms would be subject to the emperor’s veto.

American officials were keenly interested in deploying the emperor’s authority to secure the surrender of Japan’s armed forces, but they had no intention of permitting the emperor to be the final arbiter of the occupation program. Accordingly, the response (named the Byrnes Note after Secretary of State James Byrnes) stated that “From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the supreme commander of the allied powers.” The note added that the ultimate form of Japan’s government would be “established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.” This response implied much but guaranteed nothing beyond the fact that the Japanese people would ultimately choose their form of government.

It took a second Imperial Conference and second intervention of the emperor to accept the Byrnes Note. On August 15, 1945, the emperor’s broadcast announced his decision to the Japanese people and the world.

LINK

---

quote:

---

Unless the US guaranteed troops or nukes; how could the US guarantee the peace?

---

Just a technical point, no one can guarantee the peace. The deal was for a security structure.

If the argument is that the US and UK were unwilling to put any national resources at risk or into the field for Ukrainian security, it has to leave one mulling WTF we were doing promising NATO membership to Ukraine in the first place.

quote:

---

Show me where I am wrong.

---

I don't know that you are.
I just don't share the opinion that was the primary obstacle.
IMO, the primary obstacle was a desire on the part of the UK/US to sacrifice Ukrainian fodder in the field in an effort to weaken Putin in an unending war.

Stop with the TDS.