5 ms·

And people still argue for appeasement...

99_00 5y ago
Yes, some people still argue for appeasement. Are you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position? You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
- causality0 5y ago
  Probably that taking Ukraine back from Putin will involve much more bloodshed and a higher potential for a nuclear exchange than using military force to defend it from the beginning would have.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  > Are you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position? If Putin says its war then it's war, no? The west has justified not intervening to avoid war. If it's war anyway, then we should intervene. If this isn't explicit enough, we should intervene militarily in Ukraine. > You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning. Not really, there's a lot implied by my comment...
  - allisdust 5y ago
    What would happen if indeed NATO intervenes? Russia will quickly start losing a conventional war. They would turn to nukes. When it seems like Russia is losing, all nuclear nations would be on high alert. They being on high alert with fingers on triggers is bad not just for Nato and Russia but also for non participating countries like China, India, Pakistan, Israel, NK because when there is a nuclear war on the horizon, everyone wants to be on the alert. However, each country raising alert will cause suspicion on the other country. For example, China raising its alert level will trigger India to do the same followed by Pakistan. All it takes now is one nuke to fly (may be between Nato and Russia or even a false launch detection). Now all countries will trigger all their nukes purely out of suspicion in the fog of war due to panic. So that's why Russia can shoot/burn or destroy people /cities /infrastructure, NATO will not lift a single finger in terms of actual participation in war to help Ukraine (whatever the public opinion might be).
    - dazilcher 5y ago
      > What would happen if indeed NATO intervenes? > Russia will quickly start losing a conventional war. They would turn to nukes. So what is the trigger in your opinion: NATO involvement, or losing the war? What do you think would happen if NATO doesn't intervene and Putin still loses the war?
      - allisdust 5y ago
        losing the war of course. And without NATO intervening that won't happen. There are 600k more Russian troops and countless military equipment to throw at Ukraine. West can keep the arms flowing but it won't matter by even as early as next week because the UA supply lines are falling apart. The best outcome at this juncture is to fall back to western most cities and save as much land and army as they can. Especially the army pinned in the eastern most provinces have to start moving back and meet up with the remnants in Kharkiv, Kyiv and other cities. If they fall back fast, RA cannot really pursue them as their supply lines are stretched as well. They have to get mobile and freely move around now for any chance of preventing a complete rout (and capture of the army at breakaway provinces).
- invalidname 5y ago
  Some people assume the cause is lost and that people like Putin only understand force. I see the point. But I disagree with that... * First we need to make sure we tried every other option. If WW III does start we need to be 100% sure it wasn't started when there was some other option. * I think he's a very logical actor. People incorrectly say that his operations don't make sense. They make perfect sense. He did test runs in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Syria. The west didn't do anything so he assumed nothing bad will happen The problem is he's stuck now. He wants to withdraw but he can't without looking weak. He climbed too high on the tree and he knows that if he withdraws without a "win" he won't live much longer. The west needs to find a way that he can spin as a "win" moving forward. Otherwise this might snowball.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    > The problem is he's stuck now. He wants to withdraw but he can't without looking weak. This is the part that's particularly scary to me.
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
      Not really. Not everyone in Russia wants to go down with a sinking ship.
      - xdennis 5y ago
        I don't think you understand the Russian psyche. The Russians care more about imposing suffering than their own suffering.
        another_why 5y ago
        Watch this, xdennis. Maybe you will learn something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk5RDy6xFJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk5RDy6xFJQ
        andy-x 5y ago
- simion314 5y ago
  I think we should not just give up something each time somebody is blackmailing us. I did not see many asking NATO start a war but we need to show Russia that we can do shit too, they can start "special operations that are not wars" and we can stop trading with them, send their rich back to Putin. If we want to negotiate with Putin we should have a strong position, and IMO sacrificing other countries to "appease" Putin ego is cowardliness and signals Putin that he can restore URSS because we love our comfort.
chaostheory 5y ago
Yet, that’s still the main answer because the US has pivoted to respond to Asia’s future version of the “Ukraine” incident (aka Taiwan), and the only major EU power taking the responsibility to increase their military is Germany, which also takes time to complete.
nivenkos 5y ago
Appeasement would have been to allow the LPR and DPR independence and cede Crimea before all of this even started. To avoid devastation, needless deaths and the mass exodus of refugees. Now even if the war was over tomorrow it would take decades to recover - to deal with unexploded ordnance and for people to return. We're way past appeasement.
- kr433223 5y ago
  [flagged]
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  I agree with most of this. Ukraine was a shitshow until quite recently. > When Zelensky managed same as the old Boss, to hideaway millions offshore, the Western Media was silent. Except he didn't offshore money collected from corruption. His business made that money. Maybe a slightly sketchy way to avoid paying taxes to a corrupt government. Except the very last one: > Putin's hand was forced The west was pretty close to capitulating on allowing Ukraine to join NATO when they invaded. And no one's forced them to attack civilian targets.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    Putting an enemy alliance on your doorstep, close to Moscow is intensely provocative. This is on top of the other shenanigans we've already pulled with NGOs in the Russian sphere of influence, and Russian sphere of control. We Americans blockaded (quarantined) Cuba for putting missles on our doorstep. It is a very similar situation. Buffer states can be a good thing. Zelensky has treated Kolomoisky with kid gloves despite the PrivatBank thefts [1]. Why? Because his election campaign was bankrolled in Kolomoisky [2], and 1+1 channel, owned by Kolomoisky, gave Zelensky highly favorable news coverage. This despite Kolomoisky establishing & supporting the Dnipro-1 Regiment [3] which was implicated in humans right abuses, and murders of ethnic Russians. This same Dnipro-1 Regiment was the one accused by Amnesty International of blocking foods and clothing supply shipments to Eastern Ukraine. Dnipro-1 is considered a sister battalion of Dnipro-2, and the more infamous Azov Battalion [4] [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-civil-forfeiture-complaint-proceeds-alleged-fraud-and-theft-privatbank https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-civil-for... [2] https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-reveal-offshore-holdings-of-ukrainian-president-and-his-inner-circle https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnipro-1_Regiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnipro-1_Regiment [4] https://www.firstpost.com/world/russian-military-operation-puts-the-spotlight-on-ukraines-neo-nazis-what-you-need-to-know-about-them-10419921.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/russian-military-operation-p...

Yes, some people still argue for appeasement. Are you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position? You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.

causality0 5y ago
Probably that taking Ukraine back from Putin will involve much more bloodshed and a higher potential for a nuclear exchange than using military force to defend it from the beginning would have.
Mikeb85 5y ago
> Are you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position? If Putin says its war then it's war, no? The west has justified not intervening to avoid war. If it's war anyway, then we should intervene. If this isn't explicit enough, we should intervene militarily in Ukraine. > You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning. Not really, there's a lot implied by my comment...
- allisdust 5y ago
  What would happen if indeed NATO intervenes? Russia will quickly start losing a conventional war. They would turn to nukes. When it seems like Russia is losing, all nuclear nations would be on high alert. They being on high alert with fingers on triggers is bad not just for Nato and Russia but also for non participating countries like China, India, Pakistan, Israel, NK because when there is a nuclear war on the horizon, everyone wants to be on the alert. However, each country raising alert will cause suspicion on the other country. For example, China raising its alert level will trigger India to do the same followed by Pakistan. All it takes now is one nuke to fly (may be between Nato and Russia or even a false launch detection). Now all countries will trigger all their nukes purely out of suspicion in the fog of war due to panic. So that's why Russia can shoot/burn or destroy people /cities /infrastructure, NATO will not lift a single finger in terms of actual participation in war to help Ukraine (whatever the public opinion might be).
  - dazilcher 5y ago
    > What would happen if indeed NATO intervenes? > Russia will quickly start losing a conventional war. They would turn to nukes. So what is the trigger in your opinion: NATO involvement, or losing the war? What do you think would happen if NATO doesn't intervene and Putin still loses the war?
    - allisdust 5y ago
      losing the war of course. And without NATO intervening that won't happen. There are 600k more Russian troops and countless military equipment to throw at Ukraine. West can keep the arms flowing but it won't matter by even as early as next week because the UA supply lines are falling apart. The best outcome at this juncture is to fall back to western most cities and save as much land and army as they can. Especially the army pinned in the eastern most provinces have to start moving back and meet up with the remnants in Kharkiv, Kyiv and other cities. If they fall back fast, RA cannot really pursue them as their supply lines are stretched as well. They have to get mobile and freely move around now for any chance of preventing a complete rout (and capture of the army at breakaway provinces).
invalidname 5y ago
Some people assume the cause is lost and that people like Putin only understand force. I see the point. But I disagree with that... * First we need to make sure we tried every other option. If WW III does start we need to be 100% sure it wasn't started when there was some other option. * I think he's a very logical actor. People incorrectly say that his operations don't make sense. They make perfect sense. He did test runs in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Syria. The west didn't do anything so he assumed nothing bad will happen The problem is he's stuck now. He wants to withdraw but he can't without looking weak. He climbed too high on the tree and he knows that if he withdraws without a "win" he won't live much longer. The west needs to find a way that he can spin as a "win" moving forward. Otherwise this might snowball.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > The problem is he's stuck now. He wants to withdraw but he can't without looking weak. This is the part that's particularly scary to me.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Not really. Not everyone in Russia wants to go down with a sinking ship.
    - xdennis 5y ago
      I don't think you understand the Russian psyche. The Russians care more about imposing suffering than their own suffering.
      - another_why 5y ago
        Watch this, xdennis. Maybe you will learn something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk5RDy6xFJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk5RDy6xFJQ
        andy-x 5y ago
simion314 5y ago
I think we should not just give up something each time somebody is blackmailing us. I did not see many asking NATO start a war but we need to show Russia that we can do shit too, they can start "special operations that are not wars" and we can stop trading with them, send their rich back to Putin. If we want to negotiate with Putin we should have a strong position, and IMO sacrificing other countries to "appease" Putin ego is cowardliness and signals Putin that he can restore URSS because we love our comfort.

chaostheory 5y ago

Yet, that’s still the main answer because the US has pivoted to respond to Asia’s future version of the “Ukraine” incident (aka Taiwan), and the only major EU power taking the responsibility to increase their military is Germany, which also takes time to complete.

nivenkos 5y ago

Appeasement would have been to allow the LPR and DPR independence and cede Crimea before all of this even started. To avoid devastation, needless deaths and the mass exodus of refugees. Now even if the war was over tomorrow it would take decades to recover - to deal with unexploded ordnance and for people to return. We're way past appeasement.

kr433223 5y ago
[flagged]

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

Mikeb85 5y ago
I agree with most of this. Ukraine was a shitshow until quite recently. > When Zelensky managed same as the old Boss, to hideaway millions offshore, the Western Media was silent. Except he didn't offshore money collected from corruption. His business made that money. Maybe a slightly sketchy way to avoid paying taxes to a corrupt government. Except the very last one: > Putin's hand was forced The west was pretty close to capitulating on allowing Ukraine to join NATO when they invaded. And no one's forced them to attack civilian targets.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  Putting an enemy alliance on your doorstep, close to Moscow is intensely provocative. This is on top of the other shenanigans we've already pulled with NGOs in the Russian sphere of influence, and Russian sphere of control. We Americans blockaded (quarantined) Cuba for putting missles on our doorstep. It is a very similar situation. Buffer states can be a good thing. Zelensky has treated Kolomoisky with kid gloves despite the PrivatBank thefts [1]. Why? Because his election campaign was bankrolled in Kolomoisky [2], and 1+1 channel, owned by Kolomoisky, gave Zelensky highly favorable news coverage. This despite Kolomoisky establishing & supporting the Dnipro-1 Regiment [3] which was implicated in humans right abuses, and murders of ethnic Russians. This same Dnipro-1 Regiment was the one accused by Amnesty International of blocking foods and clothing supply shipments to Eastern Ukraine. Dnipro-1 is considered a sister battalion of Dnipro-2, and the more infamous Azov Battalion [4] [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-civil-forfeiture-complaint-proceeds-alleged-fraud-and-theft-privatbank https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-civil-for... [2] https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-reveal-offshore-holdings-of-ukrainian-president-and-his-inner-circle https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnipro-1_Regiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnipro-1_Regiment [4] https://www.firstpost.com/world/russian-military-operation-puts-the-spotlight-on-ukraines-neo-nazis-what-you-need-to-know-about-them-10419921.html https://www.firstpost.com/world/russian-military-operation-p...