3 ms·
While de-escalation may have been tried, the parent is pointing out that the attempts have ceased. But what is the end-game if de-escalation is no longer the g
by rhn_mk1 5y ago
While de-escalation may have been tried, the parent is pointing out that the attempts have ceased.
But what is the end-game if de-escalation is no longer the goal? Is the West ready to commit to that end-game?
- willis936 5y agoDe-escalation was abandoned because it appeared fruitless. The Kremlin must be willing to be diplomatic for diplomacy to work.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoSure, but that ignores the elephant in the room: if not de-escalation then what?
- willis936 5y agoThen defense. I don't see sanctions, insulation, and supporting Ukraine as military offense. It makes the Russian offensive much more costly though.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoDefense doesn't work as a goal. Lack of de-escalation is likely to mean further escalation. You can step into defense as you escalate a conflict, but you can't remain in defense forever as a conflict with a nuclear power heats up. The elephant in the room is not escalation in itself, it's what comes at the end of the road. If there are currently no attempts at de-escalation, and no one in the West wants to acknowledge that this leads to a nuclear conflict, what is the West actually hoping for?
- willis936 5y agoSure it does. Make the war cost more than its valued. It isn't a binary "things heat up or cool off". The motivations of all parties must be constantly re-evaluated.