3 ms·

Ah yes. Appeasement. Always a winning strategy. Ukraine has had its own independent culture for thousands of years. Russian propaganda doesn't erase history. R

Ah yes. Appeasement. Always a winning strategy. Ukraine has had its own independent culture for thousands of years. Russian propaganda doesn't erase history. Russia's ultimate goal is to erase Ukraine. What's the compromise between "you need to stop existing" and "we exist", again?

ejb999 4y ago
>>Ah yes. Appeasement. Always a winning strategy. It worked fabulously for Neville Chamberlain didn't it? </sarc>
tsimionescu 4y ago
The main reason Putin attacked Ukraine is the ever growing NATO presence in Ukraine, which is an existential threat to the current Russian regime. If NATO got Ukraine, Putin would likely be the next target. And negotiation is always the winning strategy, since in war everyone loses.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  There was no NATO in Ukraine, but now Sweden and Finland are NATO. The reason is why Ukraine is existential threat to current Russian regime is because they have democracy and personal freedom, which spreads around (Belarus, Kazahstan, etc) and challenges foundation of Putin regime.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Ukraine's constitution says they will try to join NATO. NATO has explicitly said its door is open to Ukraine. Putin's puppet leader of Ukraine was ousted with US involvement. For the past 8+ years, NATO had been pouring money, weapons, training and intel into Ukraine. Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine. Now that the war has started, but only is NATO pouring weapons and Intel into Ukraine, they are actually providing detailed targeting data for much of Ukraine's long-range weaponry. NATO guns are being wielded by NATO-trained soldiers deployed in positions suggested by NATO tacticians based on NATO intelligence gathering. The guns are targeted by NATO computers. Ukrainians are basically only pulling the trigger, and of course taking the bullets. So saying "there was no NATO in Ukraine" is quite absurd. On the other hand, Putin has clearly misjudged this invasion, and it has already become a costly mistake from all points of view. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a major blow, in addition to the economic sanctions, while the initial failure of his all fronts invasion has surely been a major blow to the image of the Russian military. However, while this is great news for NATO, it doesn't mean that it's also great news for Ukraine, which has already sacrificed much. And personally, I believe this invasion is Russia's last stand: that will either crush Ukraine into dust (assuming Ukraine doesn't acquiesce), or they will crumble themselves. I don't think nuclear weapons are off the table for Russia if it thinks the alternative is pulling out of Ukraine with no guarantees it will abandon cooperation with NATO.
    - riku_iki 4y ago
      > NATO has explicitly said its door is open to Ukraine Could you provide any references on this? NATO needs to agree on this unanimously, and afaik several countries explicitly opposed this. > had been pouring money, weapons This is not true. NATO refused to even sell heavy weapons to Ukraine because afraid to anger Russia. Ukrainians built their army by recovering 50y old tanks from soviet junk yards. > Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine. Could you provide reference?
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        > Could you provide any references on this? NATO needs to agree on this unanimously, and afaik several countries explicitly opposed this. Sure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL0179714620080403 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL017971462008040... . > This is not true. NATO refused to even sell heavy weapons to Ukraine because afraid to anger Russia. Ukrainians built their army by recovering 50y old tanks from soviet junk yards. This is disputed. Here is for example the Ukrainian minister of defense claiming that shipments of weapons from NATO countries started in 2014: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29198497 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29198497 Here is a story about the USA supplying arms to Ukraine under Trump: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-weapons-to-ukraine-a-primer/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-we... > Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine. Sure: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-holds-military-drills-with-us-forces-nato-allies-2021-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h...
        riku_iki 4y ago
        > Sure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL017971462008040 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL017971462008040... . yes, Ukraine wanted to join NATO in 2008, it was rejected, and under pressure from USA they promised "maybe some time in the future", which never happened and political bs. > This is disputed. > Here is for example the Ukrainian minister of defense claiming that shipments of weapons from NATO countries started in 2014: They shipped like hundred javelins in 7 years. It is not heavy weapon you can fight Russia with. > Sure: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h... At the end it was 300 american soldiers. https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_interoperability_with_rapid_trident_exercise https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_...
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > in war everyone loses That kinda overlooks several thousand years of history.

ejb999 4y ago

>>Ah yes. Appeasement. Always a winning strategy. It worked fabulously for Neville Chamberlain didn't it? </sarc>

tsimionescu 4y ago

The main reason Putin attacked Ukraine is the ever growing NATO presence in Ukraine, which is an existential threat to the current Russian regime. If NATO got Ukraine, Putin would likely be the next target. And negotiation is always the winning strategy, since in war everyone loses.

riku_iki 4y ago
There was no NATO in Ukraine, but now Sweden and Finland are NATO. The reason is why Ukraine is existential threat to current Russian regime is because they have democracy and personal freedom, which spreads around (Belarus, Kazahstan, etc) and challenges foundation of Putin regime.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Ukraine's constitution says they will try to join NATO. NATO has explicitly said its door is open to Ukraine. Putin's puppet leader of Ukraine was ousted with US involvement. For the past 8+ years, NATO had been pouring money, weapons, training and intel into Ukraine. Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine. Now that the war has started, but only is NATO pouring weapons and Intel into Ukraine, they are actually providing detailed targeting data for much of Ukraine's long-range weaponry. NATO guns are being wielded by NATO-trained soldiers deployed in positions suggested by NATO tacticians based on NATO intelligence gathering. The guns are targeted by NATO computers. Ukrainians are basically only pulling the trigger, and of course taking the bullets. So saying "there was no NATO in Ukraine" is quite absurd. On the other hand, Putin has clearly misjudged this invasion, and it has already become a costly mistake from all points of view. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a major blow, in addition to the economic sanctions, while the initial failure of his all fronts invasion has surely been a major blow to the image of the Russian military. However, while this is great news for NATO, it doesn't mean that it's also great news for Ukraine, which has already sacrificed much. And personally, I believe this invasion is Russia's last stand: that will either crush Ukraine into dust (assuming Ukraine doesn't acquiesce), or they will crumble themselves. I don't think nuclear weapons are off the table for Russia if it thinks the alternative is pulling out of Ukraine with no guarantees it will abandon cooperation with NATO.
  - riku_iki 4y ago
    > NATO has explicitly said its door is open to Ukraine Could you provide any references on this? NATO needs to agree on this unanimously, and afaik several countries explicitly opposed this. > had been pouring money, weapons This is not true. NATO refused to even sell heavy weapons to Ukraine because afraid to anger Russia. Ukrainians built their army by recovering 50y old tanks from soviet junk yards. > Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine. Could you provide reference?
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      > Could you provide any references on this? NATO needs to agree on this unanimously, and afaik several countries explicitly opposed this. Sure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL0179714620080403 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL017971462008040... . > This is not true. NATO refused to even sell heavy weapons to Ukraine because afraid to anger Russia. Ukrainians built their army by recovering 50y old tanks from soviet junk yards. This is disputed. Here is for example the Ukrainian minister of defense claiming that shipments of weapons from NATO countries started in 2014: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29198497 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29198497 Here is a story about the USA supplying arms to Ukraine under Trump: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-weapons-to-ukraine-a-primer/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-we... > Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine. Sure: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-holds-military-drills-with-us-forces-nato-allies-2021-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h...
      - riku_iki 4y ago
        > Sure: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL017971462008040 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-idUSL017971462008040... . yes, Ukraine wanted to join NATO in 2008, it was rejected, and under pressure from USA they promised "maybe some time in the future", which never happened and political bs. > This is disputed. > Here is for example the Ukrainian minister of defense claiming that shipments of weapons from NATO countries started in 2014: They shipped like hundred javelins in 7 years. It is not heavy weapon you can fight Russia with. > Sure: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h... At the end it was 300 american soldiers. https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_interoperability_with_rapid_trident_exercise https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_...
WalterBright 4y ago
> in war everyone loses That kinda overlooks several thousand years of history.