5 ms·

>We need serious attempts and ongoing discussion about how to stop military escalation. History has shown us that appeasement is the worst possible policy.

roenxi 4y ago
The future will show large nuclear arsenals are the worst policy. It is not the 1930s and Russia is not Germany. The borders of the USSR have retreated over most of our lifetime, Moscow controlled all of Ukraine as recently as 1990 and gave it up more-or-less voluntarily. If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime, I don't think we need to draw a red line at the Ukraine border against the other nuclear superpower. And we should be negotiating.
- js8 4y ago
  While I disagree with your other comments, I totally agree with denuclearization. Expanding NATO (founded on nuclear deterrence paradigm) as a reaction to Russia is wrong.
  - phicoh 4y ago
    As we can clearly see now, NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons. What protects, for example, the Baltic countries is not the threat that the US might take initiative to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia, no it is the vast conventional capabilities of the US. Just supplying a relatively small amount of weapons to Ukraine is enough to destroy most of the Russian army.
    - js8 4y ago
      If NATO doesn't need nuclear weapons, one more reason to get rid of them. The truth is number of states that endorse nuclear weapons expands as NATO expands, and I see that as a security risk.
      - stoltzmann 4y ago
        The poster you've replied to said >NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapons, NATO must also have them to keep parity. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. Genie's out of the bottle.
        js8 4y ago
        > Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. I disagree. Progress is being made (see ICANW), despite setbacks, some unfortunately coming from "the West", which is supposed to be morally more advanced. And NATO doesn't need to keep parity with Russia, what for? I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?
        stoltzmann 4y ago
        NATO does have to at least keep parity with Russia. Russia is the number one threat in the region, and NATO was made specifically for this purpose. Without adequate weapons to ensure peace, there would be no point of the alliance. Nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent. In this case from an adversary that has nuclear weapons - without those in stock NATO would be outmatched and vulnerable to being subject to the threat of using them. At the end of the day, states with nuclear weapons get to push non-nuclear states around. Good luck getting Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea to disarm. Getting the West to abandon their nuclear weapons would be morally reprehensible as those states would become subjects to the states that did not. It's a nice dream, but: 1. It won't happen. 2. Nuclear weapons I believe are the most important reason why we did not have a conventional war in Europe for 80 years. Russia would not attack an adversary that was nuclear armed or in a nuclear sharing program.
        js8 4y ago
        I do not agree with your cynicism. You just made an opposite argument - that NATO doesn't really need nuclear weapons to defend against Russia. I think, if NATO countries (and the U.S.) wanted to, they could make lot more effort to denuclearize. I don't think NATO can institutionally do it, though (it wasn't designed for it). For example, they could propose more aggressive mutual disarmament treaties, that would decrease arsenal in certain proportions on a timeline, with inspections. They don't do that, so I conclude that they don't really want to. As for the peace - plenty of countries in Europe that are not involved in nuclear weapons and yet enjoy peace. As you said - nuclear countries bully the non-nuclear ones around, therefore, effort should be made to get rid of them completely.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      Based on Russian performance at the start of the invasion, a similar force would have overrun the Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are small and geographically isolated. They are surrounded by Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Sea. Any attempt to support and supply them would have to go through the small gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus, or over the Baltic Sea, which would be heavily contested. The geographic situation largely explains why the Baltic States support the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland so strongly, and why Russia is opposed to it. With Sweden and Finland in NATO, the Baltic Sea will become NATO's internal sea. NATO would likely have naval and air superiority over it, which would keep supply lines open and give them a chance to defend the Baltic States with conventional weapons.
      - jopsen 4y ago
        Wouldn't any Russian force driving around in the Baltic states be easy targets for NATO cruise missiles and air power? None of which NATO countries has offered to use in Ukraine. I think logistics by railway would be problematic if NATO allies launched a few thousand cruise missiles.
        jltsiren 4y ago
        That's the benefit of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Air power is of little use if your forces don't have access to the relevant area. The Baltic states are surrounded by Russian bases and air defenses, while NATO bases are far away. Right now, Kaliningrad is effectively a fortress that separates the Baltic states from the rest of NATO. Sweden and Finland give NATO air forces the option to bypass Kaliningrad and operate from bases that are closer to the Baltic states.
        jopsen 4y ago
        There was already Norway, Denmark and Poland fairly close by (close in terms of air travel). But yes, Sweden and Finland in NATO is nice. Also for the fact that NATO not intervening in aggression against Sweden or Finland is hard to imagine, so getting papers on the marriage is nice for all parties involved.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  > If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime... First, I wouldn't call this authoritarian[1] but imperialistic[2]. But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I do condemn both invasions! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
  - roenxi 4y ago
    Ah, thankyou. I was struggling to find the right word. > But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Both invasions were horrific. But the response to the US invasion of central Asia by other Asian powers was "eh, what can you do?". I don't see why the Russian invasion of Ukraine needs to be treated so differently, pouring in weapons, levelling sanctions, triggering various crisises, increasingly aggressive rhetoric and so forth. If Asia can get invaded and we all take it in stride, Europe can get invaded and we can admit the idea that we could again take it in stride. These people aren't so different from each other. The response should be a lot more thoughtful. More people need to acknowledge that in all likelihood that Russia is acting deliberately in response to long-term pressure and not because Putin is a special evil.
  - jopsen 4y ago
    > I do condemn both invasions! So does many Americans politicians. Indeed a vocal minority opposed the US invasion at the time (they weren't prosecuted). IMO, the way the US negotiates and works with allies makes these wars incomparable.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >The borders of the USSR have retreated over most of our lifetime, Moscow controlled all of Ukraine as recently as 1990 and gave it up more-or-less voluntarily. The problem is you think they "own" them. >If the US can invade the middle east One nation they invaded was Iraq, and while catastrophic, they've created a democracy that later told US to fuck off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Fo... You can very much argue against that, and I'd agree, but it's not comparable to colonial war of aggression to literally enslave and genocide free nation. >I don't think we need to draw a red line at the Ukraine border against the other nuclear superpower. They are far from anything super, as we've seen in Kharkiv Oblast last week.
  - newaccount2021 4y ago
- nradov 4y ago
  Who is the "we" that should be negotiating? The US, EU, and NATO aren't parties to the conflict. Russia and Ukraine are free to negotiate at any time, and in fact have already held talks at several points during the conflict. I assume thought, that you favor some sort of negotiated settlement. How much territory should Ukraine cede to Russia in exchange for peace? And what would prevent Russia from coming back and taking another slice in a few years? Remember they already did this once before in 2014.
  - jopsen 4y ago
    It's also hard to negotiate when Russia said there'd be no invasion, like the day before they crossed the border. What credibility is left?
Bayart 4y ago
Has it ? What's the data point, beyond Hitler ? Because History has shown repeatedly and consistently that escalation is reckless and extremely costly.
- js8 4y ago
  I agree, and even Hitler is dubious. I am Czech, and the Munich Agreement is very emotionally painful for us. However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. (Nor would fighting against Russian invasion in 1968, btw.) And arguably in the case of Ukraine the appeasement already happened after 2014 Donetsk war. I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed.
  - The_Colonel 4y ago
    > However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. That's actually very uncertain. If the war broke out, Hitler might get overthrown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy Hitler's position was shaky at the time, but his success in Czechoslovakia made any opposition impossible and increased hunger for more.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    That's also ignoring few earlier opportunities to strike against Hitler. >https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/first-strike-how-the-poles-wanted-to-launch-a-preventive-war-against-hitlers-germany-3447 https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/first-strike-how-the-po... Additionally, after remilitarization, there were more opportunities to Strike. Rhineland, Anschluss of Austria... the longer you wait it's worse. >I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed. Wehrmacht was not close to being combat ready yet, and would get crushed by combined Polish-Czechoslovakian-Western Allies troops. Without Czechoslovakia opposing them, and Czech industry fully contributing to Hitler's war machine odds were drastically better for Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t) >However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. And Ukraine is winning the war, saving 40 million Ukrainians from genocide.

roenxi 4y ago

The future will show large nuclear arsenals are the worst policy. It is not the 1930s and Russia is not Germany. The borders of the USSR have retreated over most of our lifetime, Moscow controlled all of Ukraine as recently as 1990 and gave it up more-or-less voluntarily. If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime, I don't think we need to draw a red line at the Ukraine border against the other nuclear superpower. And we should be negotiating.

js8 4y ago
While I disagree with your other comments, I totally agree with denuclearization. Expanding NATO (founded on nuclear deterrence paradigm) as a reaction to Russia is wrong.
- phicoh 4y ago
  As we can clearly see now, NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons. What protects, for example, the Baltic countries is not the threat that the US might take initiative to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia, no it is the vast conventional capabilities of the US. Just supplying a relatively small amount of weapons to Ukraine is enough to destroy most of the Russian army.
  - js8 4y ago
    If NATO doesn't need nuclear weapons, one more reason to get rid of them. The truth is number of states that endorse nuclear weapons expands as NATO expands, and I see that as a security risk.
    - stoltzmann 4y ago
      The poster you've replied to said >NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapons, NATO must also have them to keep parity. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. Genie's out of the bottle.
      - js8 4y ago
        > Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. I disagree. Progress is being made (see ICANW), despite setbacks, some unfortunately coming from "the West", which is supposed to be morally more advanced. And NATO doesn't need to keep parity with Russia, what for? I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?
        stoltzmann 4y ago
        NATO does have to at least keep parity with Russia. Russia is the number one threat in the region, and NATO was made specifically for this purpose. Without adequate weapons to ensure peace, there would be no point of the alliance. Nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent. In this case from an adversary that has nuclear weapons - without those in stock NATO would be outmatched and vulnerable to being subject to the threat of using them. At the end of the day, states with nuclear weapons get to push non-nuclear states around. Good luck getting Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea to disarm. Getting the West to abandon their nuclear weapons would be morally reprehensible as those states would become subjects to the states that did not. It's a nice dream, but: 1. It won't happen. 2. Nuclear weapons I believe are the most important reason why we did not have a conventional war in Europe for 80 years. Russia would not attack an adversary that was nuclear armed or in a nuclear sharing program.
        js8 4y ago
        I do not agree with your cynicism. You just made an opposite argument - that NATO doesn't really need nuclear weapons to defend against Russia. I think, if NATO countries (and the U.S.) wanted to, they could make lot more effort to denuclearize. I don't think NATO can institutionally do it, though (it wasn't designed for it). For example, they could propose more aggressive mutual disarmament treaties, that would decrease arsenal in certain proportions on a timeline, with inspections. They don't do that, so I conclude that they don't really want to. As for the peace - plenty of countries in Europe that are not involved in nuclear weapons and yet enjoy peace. As you said - nuclear countries bully the non-nuclear ones around, therefore, effort should be made to get rid of them completely.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    Based on Russian performance at the start of the invasion, a similar force would have overrun the Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are small and geographically isolated. They are surrounded by Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Sea. Any attempt to support and supply them would have to go through the small gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus, or over the Baltic Sea, which would be heavily contested. The geographic situation largely explains why the Baltic States support the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland so strongly, and why Russia is opposed to it. With Sweden and Finland in NATO, the Baltic Sea will become NATO's internal sea. NATO would likely have naval and air superiority over it, which would keep supply lines open and give them a chance to defend the Baltic States with conventional weapons.
    - jopsen 4y ago
      Wouldn't any Russian force driving around in the Baltic states be easy targets for NATO cruise missiles and air power? None of which NATO countries has offered to use in Ukraine. I think logistics by railway would be problematic if NATO allies launched a few thousand cruise missiles.
      - jltsiren 4y ago
        That's the benefit of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Air power is of little use if your forces don't have access to the relevant area. The Baltic states are surrounded by Russian bases and air defenses, while NATO bases are far away. Right now, Kaliningrad is effectively a fortress that separates the Baltic states from the rest of NATO. Sweden and Finland give NATO air forces the option to bypass Kaliningrad and operate from bases that are closer to the Baltic states.
        jopsen 4y ago
        There was already Norway, Denmark and Poland fairly close by (close in terms of air travel). But yes, Sweden and Finland in NATO is nice. Also for the fact that NATO not intervening in aggression against Sweden or Finland is hard to imagine, so getting papers on the marriage is nice for all parties involved.
red_trumpet 4y ago
> If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime... First, I wouldn't call this authoritarian[1] but imperialistic[2]. But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I do condemn both invasions! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
- roenxi 4y ago
  Ah, thankyou. I was struggling to find the right word. > But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Both invasions were horrific. But the response to the US invasion of central Asia by other Asian powers was "eh, what can you do?". I don't see why the Russian invasion of Ukraine needs to be treated so differently, pouring in weapons, levelling sanctions, triggering various crisises, increasingly aggressive rhetoric and so forth. If Asia can get invaded and we all take it in stride, Europe can get invaded and we can admit the idea that we could again take it in stride. These people aren't so different from each other. The response should be a lot more thoughtful. More people need to acknowledge that in all likelihood that Russia is acting deliberately in response to long-term pressure and not because Putin is a special evil.
- jopsen 4y ago
  > I do condemn both invasions! So does many Americans politicians. Indeed a vocal minority opposed the US invasion at the time (they weren't prosecuted). IMO, the way the US negotiates and works with allies makes these wars incomparable.
KptMarchewa 4y ago
>The borders of the USSR have retreated over most of our lifetime, Moscow controlled all of Ukraine as recently as 1990 and gave it up more-or-less voluntarily. The problem is you think they "own" them. >If the US can invade the middle east One nation they invaded was Iraq, and while catastrophic, they've created a democracy that later told US to fuck off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Fo... You can very much argue against that, and I'd agree, but it's not comparable to colonial war of aggression to literally enslave and genocide free nation. >I don't think we need to draw a red line at the Ukraine border against the other nuclear superpower. They are far from anything super, as we've seen in Kharkiv Oblast last week.
- newaccount2021 4y ago
nradov 4y ago
Who is the "we" that should be negotiating? The US, EU, and NATO aren't parties to the conflict. Russia and Ukraine are free to negotiate at any time, and in fact have already held talks at several points during the conflict. I assume thought, that you favor some sort of negotiated settlement. How much territory should Ukraine cede to Russia in exchange for peace? And what would prevent Russia from coming back and taking another slice in a few years? Remember they already did this once before in 2014.
- jopsen 4y ago
  It's also hard to negotiate when Russia said there'd be no invasion, like the day before they crossed the border. What credibility is left?

Bayart 4y ago

Has it ? What's the data point, beyond Hitler ? Because History has shown repeatedly and consistently that escalation is reckless and extremely costly.

js8 4y ago
I agree, and even Hitler is dubious. I am Czech, and the Munich Agreement is very emotionally painful for us. However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. (Nor would fighting against Russian invasion in 1968, btw.) And arguably in the case of Ukraine the appeasement already happened after 2014 Donetsk war. I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed.
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  > However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. That's actually very uncertain. If the war broke out, Hitler might get overthrown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy Hitler's position was shaky at the time, but his success in Czechoslovakia made any opposition impossible and increased hunger for more.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  That's also ignoring few earlier opportunities to strike against Hitler. >https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/first-strike-how-the-poles-wanted-to-launch-a-preventive-war-against-hitlers-germany-3447 https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/first-strike-how-the-po... Additionally, after remilitarization, there were more opportunities to Strike. Rhineland, Anschluss of Austria... the longer you wait it's worse. >I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed. Wehrmacht was not close to being combat ready yet, and would get crushed by combined Polish-Czechoslovakian-Western Allies troops. Without Czechoslovakia opposing them, and Czech industry fully contributing to Hitler's war machine odds were drastically better for Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t) >However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. And Ukraine is winning the war, saving 40 million Ukrainians from genocide.