Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[zazen]

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@zazen

Premise:

If we take multipolarity seriously, then what you call Russia’s natural push for buffers has an equally natural counterbalance: Europe’s balancing and denial. That’s the security dilemma, not a moral failure or a reason to demonize in your recognition of it. Spheres explain behaviour, they don’t confer rights or vetoes. Again recognising a multipolar world isn’t capitulation; it’s a competitive coexistence (Something i've resisted accepting). In such a system, small states have agency also: Ukraine, Poland or Georgia aren’t just buffer zones, without recognition of that, we have eternal conflict using them as pawns. In a region with clashing ideologies, history and cultural memories over a thousand years of it, friction is predictable; you aren't acknowledging that enough. Yes, the standard should be consent and non-aggression, but not deference to a power’s sphere because you or I favor its position. Europe rearming and backing Ukraine is a predictable and normal balancing response.

What should Europe actually do?

Me:
Strong united front to keep their sphere pushing toward Russia, nukes in Ukraine to mimic Belarus, keep pushing back. Until we can start to consider smaller states sovereignty as a globe. Russia isn't developed enough to do so yet. I'm just going to be blunt @zazen you reason from a place that doesn't yet exist. Which is noble and useful to point out better solutions but flawed in practicality.
 

About your premise: The point is Russia wants a buffer and the West doesn’t - it denies this as you said. Balancing is acknowledging each others limits and red lines - not erasing them because of an imperially entitled mindset to the globe as your sphere of influence and dominion.

Russia wants multipolarity and strategic depth. Europe/US wants a unipolar Western vision based upon primacy and supremacy, not balance.

Spheres explain behaviour but also impose structural constraints upon nations within that sphere. Like I said, sovereignty exists on a spectrum - small states don’t get to behave like global actors just because a liberal framework tells them they’re sovereign and equal. Should all states now get veto power because they’re equal? This is a romanticised view of sovereignty and agency that divorces itself from real world power dynamics and the consequences of denying those dynamics.

Can Scotland or Wales simply start allying with China or Russia and integrate their military systems because their sovereign - will UK allow this simply because it’s lawful for them to do so?

Legality doesn’t override survival and power dynamics - laws exist to buffer against power dynamics and mediate power itself, not deny power all together and confer absolute sovereignty to everyone - which has no basis in reality. Every country can’t identify as or be a pole when it lacks the gravitational pull of one. Countries don’t exist in a vaccum with absolute sovereignty and freedom from consequence when the context they exist within is denied.

This is the tension you keep running into - between power (law of the jungle) vs principle (law itself). The world exists with both - and denying the other gives a distorted view of reality: either too idealistic / utopian or too inhumane and barbaric. Principles (rights) needs to be balanced with the reality of power (might) - we can’t wish away survival or power dynamics only manage them - which is what multipolar frameworks should do.

It’s not about “favoring” Russia’s position or “deferring” to its sphere. We need to recognize the structural reality that power and geography impose limits - not to justify them morally, but to avoid war.

Buffer states don’t exist because great powers are entitled, but because peace demands space. A buffer isn’t a moral concession but a strategic compromise. Ironically, a buffer state keeps more of its sovereignty through neutrality than it ever would as a pawn locked between two rival tearing it apart.

Sovereignty doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want, and call it peace because it was “consensual.” Consenting to certain things, bring consequences that laws can't always protect you from. As I said - survival and power dynamics can’t be overridden by legal abstractions.

About what you think Europe should do:

You reason, like many others here do - with a liberal Utopianism that overlooks survival and power dynamics. So much for Leo constantly mentioning survival survival survival - the lessons of which haven’t been learnt.

The West isn’t developed enough to respect a larger states red lines that ensure their security, as well as the worlds through a buffer zone between rival powers.

Your solution literally calls for Europe pushing their sphere towards Russia - how is that a mature way to exist in a multi-polar world? Where one pole insists to be the only one that can infringe upon and eventually gobble up all others because it’s entitled to the entire globe as their sphere? That’s the whole problem to begin with.

Multi-polarity isn’t like an Audi logo where one sphere can just push into the other and they co-exist without friction. It’s more like tectonic plates with cushioning (buffer states) between them.

Edited August 18 by zazen

[Scholar]

17 minutes ago, zazen said:

About your premise: The point is the Russia wants a buffer and the West doesn’t - it denies this as you said. Balancing is acknowledging each others limits and red lines - not erasing them because of an imperial entitled mindset. 
Russia wants multipolarity and strategic depth. Europe/US wants a unipolar Western vision based upon primacy and supremacy, not balance.

Spheres explain behaviour but also impose structural constraints upon nations within that sphere. Like I said, sovereignty exists on a spectrum - small states don’t get to behave like global actors just because a liberal framework tells them they’re sovereign and equal. Should all states now get veto power because they’re equal? This is a romanticised view of sovereignty and agency that divorces itself from real world power dynamics.

Can Scotland or Wales simply start allying with China or Russia and integrate their military systems because their sovereign - will UK allow this simply because it’s lawful for them to do so?

Legality doesn’t override survival and power dynamics - laws exist to buffer against power dynamics and mediate power itself, not deny power all together and confer absolute sovereignty to everyone that can’t exist in reality. Every country can’t identify as or be a pole when it lacks the gravitational pull of one.

This is the tension you keep running into - between power (law of the jungle) vs principle (law itself). The world exists with both - and denying the other gives a distorted view of reality: either too idealistic / utopian or too inhumane and barbaric. Principles (rights) needs to be balanced with the reality of power (might) - we can’t wish away survival or power dynamics only manage them - which is what multipolar frameworks should do.

It’s not about “favoring” Russia’s position or “deferring” to its sphere. We need to recognize the structural reality that power and geography impose limits - not to justify them morally, but to avoid war.

Buffer states don’t exist because great powers are entitled, but because peace demands space. A buffer isn’t a moral concession but a strategic compromise. Ironically, a buffer state keeps more of its sovereignty through neutrality than it ever would as a pawn locked between two rival tearing it apart.

Sovereignty doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want, and call it peace because it was “consensual.” Consenting to certain things, bring consequences that laws can't always protect you from. As I said - survival and power dynamics can’t be overridden by legal abstractions.

About what you think Europe should do:

You reason, like many others here do - with a liberal Utopianism that overlooks survival and power dynamics. So much for Leo constantly mentioning survival survival survival - the lessons of which haven’t been learnt.

The West isn’t developed enough to respect a larger states red lines that ensure their security, as well as the worlds through a buffer zone between rival powers.

Your solution literally calls for Europe pushing their sphere towards Russia - how is that a mature way to exist in a multi-polarity world? Where one pole insists to be the only one that can infringe upon and eventually gobble up all others because it’s entitled to the entire globe as their sphere? That’s the whole problem to begin with.

Multi-polarity isn’t like an Audi logo where one sphere can just push into the other and they co-exist without friction. It’s more like tectonic plates with cushioning (buffer states) between them.

Russia might want a buffer state, but why would anyone in their right mind care about that?

Russia has no entitlement to having buffer states. They are a failed empire, they are corrupt and attempt to corrupt the bufferstates we are speaking of because they threaten their political system. Therefore, the surrounding states have every right to protect themselves from Russian influence and embrace western influence. Russian oligarchs might hate that, but we aren't going to allow an authoritarian state to maintain it's "sphere of influence" just because they threaten war if we don't respect their evil wishes.

If they want conflict, then we will give it to them. We contain them until they are a failed state, for the prosperity of every country that would have to be a "buffer" state to make the corrupt oligarchs in Russia feel safe.

 

This is what real geopolitics looks like. The West has every reason to put Russia back into the stone age, and that's exactly what they should do and hopefully will do. Too bad if you can't accept real geopolitics because you have some sort of twisted moral worldview where the victim of an abuser has to remain in the relationship with their abuser because the abuser feels threatened by the idea of her finding a new boyfriend.

 

What does that even mean a "mature way to exist", you can't let a corrupt system just proliferate itself because "multipolar world tho!". The mature thing to do is to end Russian influence, which we have the opportunity to do. We destroy them militarily, economically and politically, and the nations surrounding Russia can develop and progress rather than being held back perpetually by a corrupt oligarchy.

Edited August 18 by Scholar

[zazen]

12 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@zazen


1) Why not just deal with Russia? 

This is dealing with Russia. Its a perfect understandable mirror over cultures and populations that share a long conflicting history, many similar cultural values (in the immediate region), but conflicting ideologies, in a new multipolar dynamic with competing interests. It's like asking why don't Russia just deal with these many countries to its west? Well they are.

@PurpleTreeOn Nukes, yes. I've called for that for years. That's why Putin did it in Belarus. It'll help deter invasion of Belarus in the coming decades. Its exactly what needs to happen to secure that zone of conflict for a few decades.

1A) An addition: Europe still funds Russia. No. You keep posting this in different threads @zazen, so I'll post it here again. The scale has flipped

As I've just sourced this with Chat GPT, i'll just copy paste GPT conclusions:

Quote:

• Oil: The EU cut Russian crude and products from ~29% of its oil imports in 2021 to ~2% in early-2025. That’s orders-of-magnitude smaller revenue than pre-war.
• Gas: Russia’s share of EU gas fell from ~45% pre-war to ~15–19% in 2024/25 (mix of pipeline + LNG). Norway and U.S. LNG have largely displaced it. 
• Total trade: EU goods imports from Russia dropped ~78–86% vs early-2022, even if some flows (nickel, LNG) remain. The direction of travel is clear. Reuters

Yes, India and China absorbed much of the oil, at a discount. That’s why Moscow leaned on a shadow fleet and non-Western insurance. Discounts widened again this month, underscoring Russia’s weaker pricing power. 

End Quote

2) You can’t sanction half the world (BRICS). Power is in chokepoints, not headcounts.

Population is not leveraged. The G7 and EU still dominate finance, shipping insurance, advanced tech, and capital markets. There are focused sanctions targeted at these points, which is easier given the dominance. Chat GPT adds: Even with BRICS expansion, nominal-GDP weight still trails the G7 and is fragmented by divergent interests. (PPP shares look larger but don’t buy chips, tooling, or underwriting.)  I generally liked its take more than mine here, as it brings up some interesting points.

3) Russia’s war economy is fine. Really?

Another stat quote here for speed:
Russia’s defense burden is now 6–7% of GDP; the 2025 deficit was raised to 1.7% of GDP, and the central bank hiked to 21% before easing to 18%—classic overheating control. This isn’t collapse, but it’s expensive and crowding-out.  

To me this is the biggest point of propaganda. In real terms nobody's economy is doing fine. Least of all a country which is printing 15-19% of its money every few months, is propped up by BRICS members buying energy they don't need at a discounted price, and has its refineries (its major export) hit daily. Its country is tooled up to a wartime economy, and it spent 1 million lives, many of which will be carried as a burden one way or the other by the state, both physically and psychologically. Plus how many millions that have fled and won't return, because they have families/lives/good jobs elsewhere now.

4) Manpower doesn't decide a war. Quantity helps, but quality, gear, and politics ultimately decide outcomes

UK MOD and the CSIS list Russian casualties KIA and WIA past 1 million this summer. That's an enormous casualty strain and bill for the country to carry. Maintaining their push requires hard cash, and prison recruiting both of which are dried up. These are signs of strain not a healthy military. 

The kill ratio exceeds the population imbalance you describe. Which is why, almost four years on, this is a very slow front.
 

5) Ukrainians just want a deal. Yes. To a ceasefire, not to capitulation

Quote for speed:
Gallup finds ~69% want a negotiated end “as soon as possible.” But Ukrainian polls also show little willingness to concede territory and strong belief Russia would violate a paper peace. That’s not hawkish elites forcing war; it’s a public that wants peace with security, not a reset to the next invasion. 

6) Georgia and Azerbaijan in NATO is just antagonizing Russia?

Two things here to start: Azerbaijan has never been a realistic NATO candidate in the past; While Georgia has sought a path for years.

Something you struggle with in your analysis are points like this, great power red lines don't erase neighbors agency. The Helsinki Final Act norms are states choose their alignments. Realism matters, but so do rules to govern a multipolar world, or smaller states live at the mercy of spheres of influence, and we end up in eternal conflicts. Leo would tell me they do live at their mercy, then i'd reflect that's the source of eternal conflict, until those states or populations are considered they'll just be pawns to fight or compete over. - Infact that's a realisation i've just had, not doing so is why sphere's of influence live in competition.

7) Europe is pacifist bureaucracy; 5% of GDP talk is fantasy?

Again GPT does stats far better than me:
The EU was slow, but the trend is up: NATO just signaled a new spending envelope (3.5% core + 1.5% broader security); Poland is pushing ~4.7–5%; the UK is moving toward 2.5% (with some leaders floating higher over the 2030s). Industrial capacity (ammo/drones/air defense) is expanding from a low base. It’s not instantaneous, but it is material. 

8) China will replace Europe for Russian gas?

The Power of Siberia-2 still lacks a finalised contract and price; Beijing has kept Moscow waiting to extract terms. Even if built, 50 bcm doesn’t replace pre-war European pipeline volumes. I am trusting the GPT's conclusion on this i'll place sources in the next post.

 

I’ll be brief. Man it’s like a homework assignment haha

1. That’s not dealing with Russia diplomatically but throwing down with Russia instead.

1a. I know Europe and US have massively drawn down their trade with Russia. In another thread I simply pointed to the fact that India and EU trade in almost the same amount in dollar terms yet India is being punished for it.

2. It’s because they are choke points that are being weaponised - that bypasses are being built around them. BRICS are trading in their own currencies.

3. It’s managing an overheated situation economically which is true, but this is far from impending collapse. The reason they can even hike rates to 20% is because they aren’t as indebted as the Western financial system. The Ruble hasn’t crashed as expected from all this but has been the best performing currency this year. It’s a situational stress (during war time) not systemic. Expansion of the money supply to fund the war occurred with the US in WW2 (44% of GDP) and yet they remained resilient and came out on top after.

Russia spending 6-7% GDP is a burden but yet Europe spending 5% isn’t? When they have way higher debt to GDP (countries with over 100%) and welfare obligations their populations are expecting - that Russians aren’t because they have a different baseline and social contract with their government that doesn’t safety net them cradle to grave? France erupts into protest when the retirement age increases by 2 years from 62 to 64.

The point is Europe isn’t ready for a long war when it’s not even ready to delay retirement by two years. I’ve never said Russia is booming and ascending with BRICS to rule the world - I’ve said both are suffering but who in this war of attrition can suffer longer.

4. Tied to point 3 - expensive quality gear and arms costs more and take longer to procure. In a war of attrition this costs the country a heavy loss they may not be willing to prolong as we can now see. Russia is strained also - but they are willing and structurally equipped to strain longer - even just politically. As I said above - the political will for the West to continue this isn’t there except amongst the elites.

Your worried about far right surging in the West yet pushing for warring with Russia and cutting welfare is the very thing that adds gasoline to that fire.

5. It won’t end until the root cause is fixed. Russia unfortunately has dug into the land it’s taken and won’t concede to that either. The weaker party can’t demand maximalist positions with minimal leverage - the the West doesn’t seem to have much leverage over Russia right now. Maybe with the 100th sanctions programme though.

6. Legality, laws and agency don’t erase survival and power dynamics. Nor do they erase the geography and where your country happens to be positioned in and next to who.

The most famous example of the Helsink norms was Finland - who used neutrality and careful diplomacy to survive the Cold War next to the USSR without becoming a puppet or battleground. Which is where the term “Finlandization” comes from - maintaining de facto neutrality while preserving sovereignty and independence.

Citing the Helsinki norms to justify NATO expansion ironically ignores the historical lesson of Helsinki - which is that peace is preserved not by pushing spheres into conflict, but managing them with balance.

7. Signalling - but it hasn’t manifested yet and it’s not coming in the timeline that matters for the current war in which Ukraine needs support for now. That’s why I’ve said it all good that Europe re-arms as a deterrent - but it won’t be to decisively beat Russia in this war - it will only be for a future war if it were to ever happen, but that should be avoided at all cost.

8. Like I said , it would only replace half. The rest will be LNG. The larger point is that this is enough to keep Russia afloat and resilient - pipelines and LNG terminals being built are solid infrastructure that cements Russias integration with Eurasia and India which has decades of growth ahead. Meaning it embeds itself into stable future profits that are also sanction proof. Meaning - what cards does the West hold over Russia if it has energy sovereignty, raw materials and industry, and sanction proof trade with much of the world now trading in their own currencies instead of the dollar.

From last week:

 
The US is in short supply yet Europe is supposedly going to step in with their much higher energy prices, beurecracy, and cutting of welfare safety nets and public funding that were already under strain before the war even began. Social services that are expected in a social contract which will have to be broken for empire war games (and 5% spending) with a geographical neighbour you can’t magically wish away and that people will politically revolt over. Far right isolationist, anti-establishment nationalism here we come baby.

Edited August 18 by zazen

[zazen]

6 hours ago, Scholar said:

Russia might want a buffer state, but why would anyone in their right mind care about that?

Russia has no entitlement to having buffer states. They are a failed empire, they are corrupt and attempt to corrupt the bufferstates we are speaking of because they threaten their political system. Therefore, the surrounding states have every right to protect themselves from Russian influence and embrace western influence. Russian oligarchs might hate that, but we aren't going to allow an authoritarian state to maintain it's "sphere of influence" just because they threaten war if we don't respect their evil wishes.

If they want conflict, then we will give it to them. We contain them until they are a failed state, for the prosperity of every country that would have to be a "buffer" state to make the corrupt oligarchs in Russia feel safe.

 

This is what real geopolitics looks like. The West has every reason to put Russia back into the stone age, and that's exactly what they should do and hopefully will do. Too bad if you can't accept real geopolitics because you have some sort of twisted moral worldview where the victim of an abuser has to remain in the relationship with their abuser because the abuser feels threatened by the idea of her finding a new boyfriend.

 

What does that even mean a "mature way to exist", you can't let a corrupt system just proliferate itself because "multipolar world tho!". The mature thing to do is to end Russian influence, which we have the opportunity to do. We destroy them militarily, economically and politically, and the nations surrounding Russia can develop and progress rather than being held back perpetually by a corrupt oligarchy.

Hawkish much? We’ve evolved from neocons to Eurocons.

The US and the West aren’t entitled to be everywhere and anywhere on this planet. Many places on the planet are still corrupt - by your moral crusader logic the West should go develop those regions in Africa, Latin America and Asia too. Sounds like colonialism, but maybe not if it’s consensual. Let’s go liberate Pakistan as it’s been notoriously called a failed state (multiplied IMF bailouts) full of corruption too.

That isn’t what real geopolitics is - that’s the law of the jungle which you ironically advocate for whilst moralising as if you don’t.  You’re basically making a case for imperialism without realising it. Putting countries back into the Stone Age is a Stone Age mindset unfit for the modern world - your developed and actualised though rite?

You start by asking why should you care about buffer states? Then finish your comment asking what is a mature way to exist (in a multipolar world)  lol. Your entire emotional temper tantrum is full of holes I could fill a book with.

The West has been invested in Ukraine for decades and corruption still remains. This isn’t magically the cause of Russia being its neighbour. Zelensky just attempted undermining anti-corruption agencies, prompting large wartime protests. He only U-turned after public and Western backlash. Imagine Western funds from taxpayers being sent if he hadn’t - the already cratering credibility of Western politicians would be shotgunned.

Your entire worldview assumes the West as the naturally benevolent unipolar hegemon that’s entitled to the entire global sphere as its sphere of influence and imperialism - whilst denying the legitimate security concerns or existence of any other sphere possibly existing.

Western unipolar global dominance is an aberration in history - mere blip on the timeline. Go fix your historical amnesia and ignorance - because this aberration is now ending, and the Western arrogance, entitlement and supremacist attitude will be adjusted along with it.

 

Edited August 18 by zazen

[PurpleTree]

11 minutes ago, zazen said:

Western unipolar global dominance is an aberration in history - mere blip on the timeline. Go fix your historical amnesia and ignorance - because this aberration is now ending, and the Western arrogance, entitlement and supremacist attitude will be adjusted along with it

Thanks for living in the West and paying your taxes here though so that we can keep this thing running. ❤️ 

[PurpleTree]

Gosh Selenski is such a stud, eh? 
 

He came back in a suit.

 

[PurpleTree]

Finland president Stubb is a stud.

But Trump didn’t even see him.

Trump: Stubb stubb where are you my finnish stud?

 

[PurpleTree]

More Eurostuds

 

 

[zazen]

15 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Thanks for living in the West and paying your taxes here though so that we can keep this thing running. ❤️ 

You too papi. Looks like we gonna chop up some more though:

 

[PurpleTree]

Gigachad and Megastud Macron (who speaks English much better than Golum (Golum is Putin hehehe)

 

 

 

[Scholar]

By the way for those who say "Russia didn't want a NATO country bordering them, they need a buffer zone!".

There already are NATO countries bordering Russia, there have been for a long time, and they are much closer to the Moscovites than Ukraine.

[zazen]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

By the way for those who say "Russia didn't want a NATO country bordering them, they need a buffer zone!".

There already are NATO countries bordering Russia, there have been for a long time, and they are much closer to the Moscovites than Ukraine.

Context matters. Powers have red lines, some red lines are more critical than others. Geographic borders aren’‘t just some pretty lines on a map. There are life and death calculations that determine whether one border is strategically more vulnerable than another.

Finland is heavily forested terrain. The Baltics are also not ideal terrain to march through in an offensive,  only have a population of 6 million, and narrow borders.

Ukraine is a massive country with vast flat terrain to create the infrastructure of a forward base from, to stage offensives from and move masses of troops and tanks through.  It’s been a historic invasion corridor (Napoleon, Hitler), has a population of 40 million, and a lengthy border almost 7 times that of Estonia.

Estonia being part of a NATO is a strategic mosquito bite, Ukraine doing so is strategic kneecapping.

[Lyubov]

Seems to me a Europeanized and democratic Ukraine in NATO is such a threat because it threatens the totalitarian “Tsarist” form of government. People forget at one point in time Russia was going in this direction too but authoritarianism squashed it out every time. Who is this war protecting exactly? Russia after al lente in and inflicted violence and death on their own soldiers in doing so. I’m not sure I buy Ukraine being a security threat to Russia, it’s a security threat to the tsar, not Russia itself nor democratic states which Russia claims to be and has no problem borrowing the facade of. 

 

 

 

[zazen]

12 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Seems to me a Europeanized and democratic Ukraine in NATO is such a threat because it threatens the totalitarian “Tsarist” form of government. People forget at one point in time Russia was going in this direction too but authoritarianism squashed it out every time. Who is this war protecting exactly? Russia after al lente in and inflicted violence and death on their own soldiers in doing so. I’m not sure I buy Ukraine being a security threat to Russia, it’s a security threat to the tsar, not Russia itself nor democratic states which Russia claims to be and has no problem borrowing the facade of. 

Don't you think your diagnosing something as political when its geopolitical? A country’s form of government doesn’t override its strategic interest and national security.

Whether democratic or authoritarian, powerful nations respond to existential threats the same way: by drawing red lines and enforcing them.

A democratic United States was ready to risk nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Preserving strategic space is dictated by position (geopolitics), not principle (politics, internal or external). Are you saying that if say Russia and Ukraine were both free and democratic - but Ukraine was still integrating a rival superpowers military umbrella - Russia wouldn't react simply because Ukraine and Russia are both politically the same?

A rival power was installing strike capabilities within the US immediate sphere, the same is being flirted with today in Ukraine. Ukraine alone isn't a threat - a rival alliance led by a superpower platforming itself in Ukraine is - the same actors who want to maintain global primacy and have think tank papers citing how they want to overextend and contain you.

[PurpleTree]

Why is this Mearsheimer and Sachs talking about this stuff every day? Every day i see videos of them popping up. 

[Ajay0]

On 8/20/2025 at 9:02 PM, PurpleTree said:

Why is this Mearsheimer and Sachs talking about this stuff every day? Every day i see videos of them popping up. 

They are aware of the implications of nuclear war and want to take the US out of the equation so that if nuclear war occurs, it will be confined to Russia and Europe, and not the US. 

Also as intellectuals with brains and critical thinking skills, they can discern the situation better than the average western citizen glued to WWF , superficial social media content, drugs/alcohol and suffering from brain fog and low attention span.

So I think they are trying to educate western masses and decondition them from the corporate owned western media narratives .

[BlueOak]

So to start I asked the AI to define the topic objectively.

Me: In such a system What defines what a buffer would look like objectively? in a concise objective statement?

The Political Mind said:

Thought for 6s

A buffer is a territorially fixed state/zone whose status is set by mutually agreed, reciprocal, and verifiably enforced limits on alliances and offensive deployments—consented to by the buffer itself and neighboring powers, with automatic penalties for violations.

You said:

And how objectively does a state redefine a buffer.

The Political Mind said:

Thought for 19s

Here’s a compact, criteria-driven way to state it:

A state may redefine its buffer status when all of the following objective tests and procedures are met:

Consent test (domestic legitimacy):

Super-majority parliamentary vote (e.g., ≥⅔) and a national referendum ≥60% in favor of change.

Breach test (cause):

A certified material breach of the buffer treaty by a guarantor (e.g., prohibited systems deployed, cross-border attack), or ≥3 verified serious violations within 12 months.

Risk-threshold test (environmental change): independently verified metrics exceed agreed caps, for example:

Warning time to capital/critical nodes falls below 6 minutes due to new forward-based missiles.

Basing distance of prohibited strike assets < 300 km from border, or range > 500 km within a no-deploy belt.

Force density above 5 battalion tactical groups per 100 km of front for ≥90 days.

Verification:

Violations and thresholds confirmed by a designated inspectorate (e.g., OSCE-style mission with persistent sensors/inspections).

Notice & standstill (procedure):

Formal notification to guarantors + depositary; 90–180 day standstill for mediation while existing limits remain in force.

Reciprocity offer (good faith):

The redefining state tables alternative, reciprocal limits (e.g., “no IRBMs / no foreign bases within X km” on both sides) to replace the old regime.

Entry into force & enforcement:

If mediation fails, change takes effect on a fixed date; automatic penalties (snap-back sanctions/aid suspensions) apply to any party violating the new terms; verification continues.

In one line: a buffer can be redefined when domestic consent + verified cause or risk shift + due process are satisfied, and the new status is reciprocal, monitorable, and enforceable.

You said:

This assumes a state acting independently. When the buffer state is considered along with all the larger powers. How is it brought into reality. Assuming that not taking into account the smaller buffer state itself can lead to perpetual hostilities.

The Political Mind said:

Thought for 22s

• Great question. Here’s a concise, power-aware way to make a buffer real while preserving the smaller state’s agency.
• Blueprint: Consent-Anchored Buffer Regime (CABR)
• Principle: Power sets constraints; consent + reciprocity + verification make them governable.

1) Parties & roles

• Buffer state (B): primacy of consent; proposes/accepts limits.
• Adjacent great powers (A, C): reciprocal restraint; no veto without B’s assent.
• Guarantors (G): a neutral coalition (e.g., OSCE core states + Switzerland/Finland/Austria/Ireland) that verifies and enforces.

Depositary: OSCE (or a neutral state) holds the treaty; public registry.

2) Entry conditions (before talks)

• Ceasefire with monitors on the line of contact.
• Non-annexation pledge by A and C during talks.
• Sanctions standstill (no new measures unless violations occur).

3) Consent architecture (prevents “about you, without you”)

• Domestic super-majority + referendum in B to adopt any regime.
• Triple-consent rule for changes: B + A + C (and recorded by G).
• Minority rights & demilitarized policing plan inside B to reduce internal veto players.

4) The restraint envelope (objective limits)

• No-deploy belts (e.g., 300–500 km) for specified strike systems on both sides.
• Force-density caps (e.g., ≤5 BTGs/100 km for ≥90 days).
• No foreign bases in B; training missions capped, declared, inspected.
• Transparency: 24/7 sensors, open data feeds, flight/ship transponder rules, snap inspections.

5) Verification body (VEA)

• A treaty-created Verification & Enforcement Authority staffed by neutral states;
• Mandate: continuous ISR, inspections, incident forensics, quarterly public reports.

6) Enforcement ladder (automaticity beats rhetoric)

• Violations trigger pre-agreed, automatic steps within 72h:
• Notice & fix window (72h).
• Financial snap-backs (targeted sanctions/insurance bans) by G.
• Suspension of trade preferences/visas relative to the violator.
• Security offset: if A violates, B may receive specified systems (e.g., extra air defense/ATACMS) from G; if B violates, assistance pauses.

Binding arbitration (30 days) with VEA’s panel; non-compliance escalates steps 2–4.

7) Incentive stack (why sign and comply)

• Escrowed sanctions relief: staged unfreezing/tariff cuts tied to verified compliance milestones.
• Stability Fund for B (administered by a neutral bank/BIS) for grid repair, air defense, demining—released only on VEA certifications.
• Civil corridors (grain/power) protected by joint incident cells.

8) Dispute resolution & crisis brakes

Hotlines (military + political levels).

30-day arbitration clock with interim measures; failure triggers step-wise automatic penalties, not bargaining.

9) Review, exit, and redefinition

• 5-year reviews; earlier only if breach test or risk-threshold test (pre-agreed metrics like warning time, basing distance) is met.
• Exit requires Triple-consent and a replacement regime—or VEA declares breach and moves to Enforcement 4.

10) Public legitimacy

• Transparency portal: publish maps, inspections, violations, and penalties in real time to reduce propaganda and keep domestic consent aligned.

One-line summary:
A buffer becomes real when great-power restraints are made reciprocal and verifiable, the buffer state’s consent is constitutionally primary, and enforcement is automatic, pre-priced, and tied to concrete security and economic incentives.

[BlueOak]

@zazen

Buffers without consent are just occupations.

Again spheres describe behaviour, they don’t create rights Zazen. A buffer only stabilises if all great powers restrain themselves and the frontline state consents to it, you keep missing this last bit, it's why perpetual war exists in a multipolar system. Example: Thousands of years of history, or more recently Russia’s breach of the Budapest assurances and its 2014 and 2022 invasions broke the trust Finland would need, whatever reason you cite for this that was the eventual outcome from the Finnish perspective. That’s why Finland decided neutrality no longer brought it safety.  

GPT Quote: If the stronger actor won’t self-bind, buffer becomes a euphemism for veto over a neighbour’s choices—guaranteeing the balancing you dislike.

But how are you arbitrarily deciding what a buffer should be, what size, and which regions? I asked the AI for some objective points above. And how can perpetual hostilities be avoided when a state’s own agency is not considered? (Think all regions around the globe, Syria for example)

There is no liberal utopia in my perception of the world, though I will address that in another thread, as you've brought it up, because that mirror goes both ways. You have abandoned that set of values to supersede it with another.

Asymmetric realism.

If Russia’s drive for depth is natural, again Europe’s denial and balance of it is equally natural. Calling one prudent and the other provocative is picking a side while claiming to be above sides. Again: Recognition of multipolarity isn’t capitulation, it’s competitive coexistence where small states keep agency. You refuse to address this because you cannot in your line of argument, and further dismiss one side's ideology to only reflect the other. You'll probably focus on the ideology point, rather than the strategic one, so I considered ignoring it.

GPT Quote: The test is simple: does the front-line state consent? If not, the “red line” is a demand, not a settlement.

That’s the argument, and it’s a good one, Russian supporters or sympathizers can only side-step it never address it, because it makes the whole thing much more multipolar and nuanced, and by definition, then liberal. The paradox large collective states trying to push their influence outward find themselves in, while claiming they are for a multipolar world.

Chat GPT disagreed with me here on nukes, direct quote:

Nukes in Ukraine (Or Belarus) are the wrong medicine.
Deterrence equals maximal escalation. Forward-basing nuclear weapons in a hot war zone would blow up what’s left of the non-proliferation regime, shorten decision times, and make accidents more likely. Europe gets more stability by hardening conventional denial (air defence, long-range strike, ISR, mines, EW) than by normalising new nuclear basing east of NATO.

Me: Sadly Russia is not going this route, they are putting hypersonic missiles right inside Belarus on the border now.  So they are pushing for a buffer zone in Poland, which simply put, will never happen without WW3.

See the big flaw in your argument is, Russia is arbitrarily deciding where their sphere ends, and you suggest Europe should just accept it. Life doesn't work that way, this is what happens when life tries to work that way.

GPT Quote:

• So what does a grown-up multipolar settlement look like?
• Armistice with teeth: verified lines, 24/7 sensors, and automatic snap-back penalties for violations.
• Reciprocal non-deployment rules: no IRBMs, no strike UAV basing within agreed belts; intrusive inspections both sides.
• Conditional sanctions relief: phased, tied to compliance—not vibes.
• Enduring deterrence: Europe funds Ukrainian AD/arty/ISR at scale for years; NATO re-arms to raise the price of renewed aggression.
• Energy/finance choke-point enforcement: tighten the shadow-fleet/insurance and LNG trans-shipment loopholes; hit facilitators, not just flags.

That’s not liberal utopianism; it’s classic denial-deterrence plus verifiable restraints. You’re right that law can’t erase power. But power without rules just recreates the problem you’re diagnosing: permanent war over “buffers.” If buffers are needed, they must be anchored in consent, reciprocity, and enforcement—or they’re just the next casus belli.

End Quote

Edited August 22 by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

Man, I saw Zelensky sucking up to Trump, he said 'thank you' so many times in the begining. He wore a suit, he said he wouldn't until the war was over, and it is not over. Whatever, that's not important, but said it is. I don't think they would have ever needed to be so submissive to Russia if he had worked towards a mutual respect and commercial alliance with them, which is what he campaigned for, instead of opening the gates to its big neighbour's military enemy, NATO. I will give a point to Zelensky for the dart of telling Trump he would like to have a country with no elections, like his own. Good one!

There is no ceasefire, obviously, why would Russia stop a fight that is winning to give its rival a chance to rest, regroup, and rebuild its army? Would Ukraine propose a ceasefire if it was advancing to the 91 borders? Well, no. Trump acting like he's a neutral party in this conflict is ridiculous though, as the USA is the main power of NATO, and he bragged about arming Ukraine more than Obama did in his first term personally.

NATO won't win this war, so it won't be setting any security guarantees, any less by arming what's left of Ukraine. This is one of the main reasons that started the war. Losing a war brings many bad pills to swallow. If they want to continue, they can, and the fight will continue, but they risk an even worse outcome, as time has shown during these three and a half years.

[BlueOak]

@Hatfort
Countries don't have elections in wartime.

Russia has never wanted peace. They refuse all negotiations.

I think you are the first person to acknowledge it from the pro Russian position. Ever. Thank you. Because you are right, making small steady gains is their plan. Whereas the west's plan is to bleed them dry of men and resources. 

That's the two strategies. It has been now for years. Some people can see them both, some people can only see one. Few people can accept both as fulfilling both major powers' objectives. Whereas Ukraine's and Eastern Europe's objectives are fulfilled if Russia is no longer able to threaten them. So if we achieve that globally, in all three perspectives, stability is achieved on the battlefield; if not it continues in some form.

For all perspectives to be met. Not just one. It requires Ukraine losing Land, Russia losing enough power that it cannot advance further, the west guaranteeing Ukraine more strongly, and Russia accepting the Baltics and Finland on its border.

There is a possibility of a greater war with the buildup for the war games from China, Iran, Russia, North Korea and Belarus at once. But more hypersonic missiles in Belarus and more missile production in Ukraine, roughly 3,000km munitions at the rate of 1 a day, is probably going to be what finally stabilizes a front without nukes being used. Really depends if China kicks it off, although it'd happen together, it'll never happen without China.

Source New Ukrainian Missile being produced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamingo_(missile)

Oh and all you need do is suck up to Trump, its incredibly easy to manipulate a narcissist, but also he flips his opinion every 5 minutes if multiple people do it. Putin repeated every word he liked also and he swooned. 

Edited August 22 by BlueOak