04 Mar 22
4 edits
@no1marauder saidThat I want? I want peace. I want negotiation. But the negotiation has to be from a point of strength. You need to ratchet up the pressure before and during the negotiations to dissuade Putin from doing the exact same thing again.
Russia put forth a proposal in December which should have been a starting point for negotiations. The West and the Ukrainians basically laughed at it.
Realistically, the West is going to have to accommodate Russian security concerns. If they keep playing the game you want the result could quite possibly be nuclear war.
I said a week and a half ago that Ukraine would be well served to agree to autonomy for its separatist provinces that would like to be part of Russia. And I still think that would be a good result. But you can't just capitulate. The West has to show that it's willing to use the hammer and Russia must make an ironclad guarantee of the security of the rest of Ukraine, along with Moldova and the Baltics. Otherwise, you're just kicking the can down the road a bit.
Edit: Geez. When a read my own writing, it sounds eerily like I'm proposing Munich-style appeasement. I guess I'm clinging to a desperate hope that Putin (or at least a critical mass of people who can influence him) is fundamentally reasonable.
Edit 2: I guess one good thing that came from Munich is that, once the Nazis Occupied Bohemia and Moravia, it killed forever the notion that appeasement was going to work in the long run. If Ukrainians to give Putin the eastern provinces and then he uses it as a staging area against the rest of the country, we'll know once and for all that appeasement is not going to work with him.
04 Mar 22
@sh76 said"Appeasement" is a word easily thrown around for propaganda purposes.
That I want? I want peace. I want negotiation. But the negotiation has to be from a point of strength. You need to ratchet up the pressure before and during the negotiations to dissuade Putin from doing the exact same thing again.
I said a week and a half ago that Ukraine would be well served to agree to autonomy for its separatist provinces that would like to be part of Russ ...[text shortened]... the rest of the country, we'll know once and for all that appeasement is not going to work with him.
Was NATO "appeased" when it forcibly detached Kosovo from Serbia?
Was NATO "appeased" when it attacked Libya?
Was NATO "appeased" when it aided US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Contrary to the fairy tales popular on this board, NATO has been an aggressive user of military force in service of the neocon agenda of Western, esp. US, world dominance. Russian leaders including Yeltsin have made it clear that they did not want it expanding into Eastern Europe and were given assurances by Western leaders that it would not. These promises were broken.
This doesn't justify the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, but that hardly matters anymore - the question is what to do now. Economic sanctions will clearly not end the war, will adversely effect many nations (https://apnews.com/article/[WORD TOO LONG] and every moment the West and Ukraine cling to false hopes of a Russian defeat and/or overthrow of the Putin government (presumably immediately followed by a Russian surrender/withdrawal) is a moment that increases the suffering of the Ukrainian People. Therefore, the moral thing to do is to enter realistic negotiations with Russia that could result in an agreement that alleviates Russian security concerns while keeping as much of Ukraine intact as possible.
I realize that position isn't very popular here but so be it - the insistence that Putin is this year's Hitler and that any agreement with him is "appeasement" is likely to end up with a completely dismembered Ukraine (with millions of refugees and tens of thousands of dead) or perhaps, with nuclear war if NATO actually does intervene militarily. Avoiding these possible outcomes is really the best that can be hoped for at this point.
04 Mar 22
@mott-the-hoople saidMore likely sensible people realize that starting WW3, which will be a nuclear war, isn't worth it just for the Ukraine.
this mofo is on putins side 😳
China may invade Taiwan next I presume 🤔
Which is also another country that isn't worth WW3.
@sh76 saidThis is an excellent opinion piece: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/russia-s-ukraine-invasion-may-have-been-preventable-n1290831?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
That I want? I want peace. I want negotiation. But the negotiation has to be from a point of strength. You need to ratchet up the pressure before and during the negotiations to dissuade Putin from doing the exact same thing again.
I said a week and a half ago that Ukraine would be well served to agree to autonomy for its separatist provinces that would like to be part of Russ ...[text shortened]... the rest of the country, we'll know once and for all that appeasement is not going to work with him.
The section titled: "Russia perceives NATO as an Existential Threat" should be required reading. Excerpt:
"The issue that Russia saw in NATO was not just an expanding military alliance, but one that had shifted gears to transforming and proactively intervening in global affairs. After the end of the Cold War, NATO’s raison d’être no longer existed, but instead of disbanding, its mission shifted to democracy promotion. The carrot of membership in NATO was used to encourage countries to adopt liberalization and good governance and align with U.S. political, economic and military interests.
Of particular concern to the Russians have been NATO’s operations outside of NATO countries. The Russians were shocked by NATO’s bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, where NATO not only intervened in the affairs of a non-NATO country, but took sides against the Serbs, allies of the Russians, and did so without United Nations Security Council approval. NATO has also been involved in regime change and nation-building projects in places like Libya and Afghanistan.
“NATO is a defensive organization; I don't think it had any plans on Russia,” Thomas Graham, a former special assistant to the president and senior director for Russia on the National Security Council staff from 2004 to 2007, said regarding NATO’s expansion of territory and widening scope of operations. “All that said … if you put yourself in the position of people in the Kremlin, you can see why they came to that conclusion.”
The article concludes:
"Many of the experts I spoke to said Ukraine's neutrality or some kind of altered NATO status should be part of the discussion in diplomatic backchannels. Critics will say this constitutes “appeasement” of Putin. But as Biden has already made clear, the U.S. is not willing to wage war with Russia, and it certainly isn't going to allow Ukraine into NATO when Russia is attacking it, since that would require all of NATO to go to war with Russia. The issue now is to think clearly about how to end a conflict which could spiral into World War III.
It is imperative that America develops a clearer understanding of its adversaries and behaves more judiciously in an increasingly multipolar world. It is not difficult to imagine the U.S. making a miscalculation over what China would be willing to do to secure its domination of the South China Sea. The U.S. may want to be the only great power in the world, free to expand its hegemony with impunity, but it is not. Refusing to see this is dangerous for us all."
05 Mar 22
@sh76 saidWell put. I have something else you should know about. Scroll down to the part that says "Collaboration in Ukraine".
That I want? I want peace. I want negotiation. But the negotiation has to be from a point of strength. You need to ratchet up the pressure before and during the negotiations to dissuade Putin from doing the exact same thing again.
I said a week and a half ago that Ukraine would be well served to agree to autonomy for its separatist provinces that would like to be part of Russ ...[text shortened]... the rest of the country, we'll know once and for all that appeasement is not going to work with him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Ukraine
05 Mar 22
Zelensky is tearing into NATO for not imposing a "no-fly zone". https://www.axios.com/ukraine-nato-no-fly-zone-zelensky-video-00a61061-d45b-4e64-859a-2d462526254b.html
Since he, unlike many Americans, presumably knows that this would mean open war between NATO and the West, this bellicose tactic seems an admission that the war is going far worse for the Ukraine then Western media reports have indicated. It also shows the continued delusion of Ukrainian leadership who are unwilling to pursue realistic negotiations to end the war instead insisting that the West pursue a course that would result in a general European war (which quite possibly would go nuclear).
06 Mar 22
@metal-brain saidI know all about the Ukrainians' complicity in the Holocaust. But these people are their grandchildren. I don't generally like to blame people for sins of their grandparents.
Well put. I have something else you should know about. Scroll down to the part that says "Collaboration in Ukraine".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Ukraine
06 Mar 22
@no1marauder said===Therefore, the moral thing to do is to enter realistic negotiations with Russia that could result in an agreement that alleviates Russian security concerns while keeping as much of Ukraine intact as possible.===
"Appeasement" is a word easily thrown around for propaganda purposes.
Was NATO "appeased" when it forcibly detached Kosovo from Serbia?
Was NATO "appeased" when it attacked Libya?
Was NATO "appeased" when it aided US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Contrary to the fairy tales popular on this board, NATO has been an aggressive user of military force in ser ...[text shortened]... militarily. Avoiding these possible outcomes is really the best that can be hoped for at this point.
Does that include a Russian occupation of western Ukraine?
06 Mar 22
@Mott-The-Hoople
Who the hell is worried about Russians? You SHOULD be, traitor, the real fun beings when DC disappears in a cloud of a nuke. You would LOVE that wouldn't you?
06 Mar 22
@sh76
You seem to be under the mistaken impression Putin is dealing, first with a full deck mentally, and second, you seem to be under the impression Putin gives a crap about his own people.
If he is cornered, he will strike out with nukes. You ok with that? London disappears, NY, DC, Moscow, Berlin, clouds of nuclear smoke.....
06 Mar 22
@sh76 saidObviously if Putin insists on occupying all of Ukraine there's nothing to negotiate.
===Therefore, the moral thing to do is to enter realistic negotiations with Russia that could result in an agreement that alleviates Russian security concerns while keeping as much of Ukraine intact as possible.===
Does that include a Russian occupation of western Ukraine?
06 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidI’d watch out posting that around here. You get called all sorts of things for rationally debating causes.
This is an excellent opinion piece: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/russia-s-ukraine-invasion-may-have-been-preventable-n1290831?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
The section titled: "Russia perceives NATO as an Existential Threat" should be required reading. Excerpt:
"The issue that Russia saw in NATO was not just an expanding military alliance, but one that had shif ...[text shortened]... expand its hegemony with impunity, but it is not. Refusing to see this is dangerous for us all.[/b]"
06 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidThat’s hardly a serious possibility.
Obviously if Putin insists on occupying all of Ukraine there's nothing to negotiate.
That would entrench Russia in their next Afghanistan. Complete madness.
But, then again, I can’t see Russia’s end game in this at all.
Yes. I know they fear NATO and want it away from their borders. But so far as what they’re going to achieve by this Ukrainian “intervention” and how they plan to move forward is beyond me.
06 Mar 22
@sh76 saidMy point is there is a culture of neo Nazis there. It is trans generational. The government does have neo Nazis in it. They are trying to purge the Russian language from the country just as Russia said. The US corporate news media is complicit in this as well. They don't spell it "Kiev" anymore. They spell it "Kyiv" and even pronounce it differently now.
I know all about the Ukrainians' complicity in the Holocaust. But these people are their grandchildren. I don't generally like to blame people for sins of their grandparents.
Why are we helping the neo Nazis in Ukraine to purge the country of Russian? Why doesn't the corp. news media report how many ethnic Russians were killed by neo Nazis in Ukraine in recent history?
https://rumble.com/vwkgt1-ukraine-neo-nazis-infiltrate-every-level-of-military-and-government.html
People like to deny this truth. Democrats do not want to admit they are supporting Nazis, but THEY ARE!