4 ms·

No, peace happens when all participants agree there should be peace. That could be in a "Russia completely repelled" situation, it could also be in a situation

No, peace happens when all participants agree there should be peace. That could be in a "Russia completely repelled" situation, it could also be in a situation like the present, where Ukraine has had remarkable success on the field and decides to ask for peace at a time where Russia might want to cut their losses. As I mentioned, the US could enhance the peace offer by adding in a NATO moratorium for Ukraine. Of course, peace could come in a situation that was more favorable to Russia too. If their mobilization works better than expected, and their army starts to get their act together, or they unleash tactical nuclear weapons, or they wait till the dead of winter and level Ukrainian power, or who knows what? The US and Europe never committed to a suicide pact to ensure the sovereignty and integrity of every nation in Eastern Europe. We should not be acting like we have signed this pact. We do not need to risk World War III over who controls a few territories in Eastern Ukraine.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> If their mobilization works better than expected, and their army starts to get their act together, or they unleash tactical nuclear weapons, or they wait till the dead of winter and level Ukrainian power, or who knows what? I doubt that there mobilisation will produce any results outside of more dead Russians. I mean there professional army has been destroyed so baldy that they need mobilise and you think random citizens will make better soldiers?. US has made it clear that any use of tactical nuke in Ukraine is a real line in the sand. It would likely result in US direct involvement in the war in a conventional matter. But that’s easily enough considering just how bad the Russian army has been shown to perform. > he US and Europe never committed to a suicide pact to ensure the sovereignty and integrity of every nation in Eastern Europe. We should not be acting like we have signed this pact. We do not need to risk World War III over who controls a few territories in Eastern Ukraine. I’m sure you’d care more if it was your children being raped, if it was your children being tortured, if it was your people having genocide committed against them. It’s always interesting to watch the pro Russian people bang on about nukes whenever Russia starts losing. It’s so transparent, they rattle the nuclear sabre because they won’t even think of using actual nukes.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I do think the Russian army has been performing poorly and perhaps it will continue to. On the other hand, perhaps it won't. Or, perhaps the poorly performing Russian army will resort to measures, like nuclear weapons, that we would sincerely prefer them not to use. I think direct US involvement in a conventional war against Russia is a very, very bad outcome. That's a large part of why I oppose continuing the war and think it would be a good idea for there to be peace. It doesn't make me pro-Russia to prefer peace to war and want a settlement. That just makes me pro-peace. Killing more Russians will not restore life to the dead or undo the tortures that were inflicted on the living. The reasoning that, because the Russians have done bad things we must prolong the war leads to needless additional suffering. How many hundreds of thousands of people should die to determine which flag waves in Donbas, Luhansk, or Crimea? How many billions will we put at risk by increasing the odds of nuclear war?
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > perhaps the poorly performing Russian army will resort to measures, like nuclear weapons, that we would sincerely prefer them not to use. I think that this is the poorest decision that Russia could make, and I actually think Russia knows that too, which is why they posture about nuclear strikes without actually doing anything. > I think direct US involvement in a conventional war against Russia is a very, very bad outcome. That's a large part of why I oppose continuing the war and think it would be a good idea for there to be peace. I think ending this war as quick as possible if a nuke is used is a very good outcome and that involves overwhelming conventional force at this point. > It doesn't make me pro-Russia to prefer peace to war and want a settlement. being pro-peace is great, but it should be peace on Ukraines terms, not on the aggressors terms. > That just makes me pro-peace. Killing more Russians will not restore life to the dead or undo the tortures that were inflicted on the living. The reasoning that, because the Russians have done bad things we must prolong the war leads to needless additional suffering. The Russians are the ones who every day choose to prolong the war, they are the only ones who can choose to end it. > How many hundreds of thousands of people should die to determine which flag waves in Donbas, Luhansk, or Crimea?. Ask the Russians they are the only ones who are prolonging this war by staying in Ukraine and containing their genocide of the Ukrainian people. > How many billions will we put at risk by increasing the odds of nuclear war? I don't think this has increased the odds of nuclear war at all, there hasn't been a reported change at all in Russias nuclear posture and to be quite frank the Russian nuclear sabre rattling got old months ago.

_kbh_ 4y ago

> If their mobilization works better than expected, and their army starts to get their act together, or they unleash tactical nuclear weapons, or they wait till the dead of winter and level Ukrainian power, or who knows what? I doubt that there mobilisation will produce any results outside of more dead Russians. I mean there professional army has been destroyed so baldy that they need mobilise and you think random citizens will make better soldiers?. US has made it clear that any use of tactical nuke in Ukraine is a real line in the sand. It would likely result in US direct involvement in the war in a conventional matter. But that’s easily enough considering just how bad the Russian army has been shown to perform. > he US and Europe never committed to a suicide pact to ensure the sovereignty and integrity of every nation in Eastern Europe. We should not be acting like we have signed this pact. We do not need to risk World War III over who controls a few territories in Eastern Ukraine. I’m sure you’d care more if it was your children being raped, if it was your children being tortured, if it was your people having genocide committed against them. It’s always interesting to watch the pro Russian people bang on about nukes whenever Russia starts losing. It’s so transparent, they rattle the nuclear sabre because they won’t even think of using actual nukes.

ALittleLight 4y ago
I do think the Russian army has been performing poorly and perhaps it will continue to. On the other hand, perhaps it won't. Or, perhaps the poorly performing Russian army will resort to measures, like nuclear weapons, that we would sincerely prefer them not to use. I think direct US involvement in a conventional war against Russia is a very, very bad outcome. That's a large part of why I oppose continuing the war and think it would be a good idea for there to be peace. It doesn't make me pro-Russia to prefer peace to war and want a settlement. That just makes me pro-peace. Killing more Russians will not restore life to the dead or undo the tortures that were inflicted on the living. The reasoning that, because the Russians have done bad things we must prolong the war leads to needless additional suffering. How many hundreds of thousands of people should die to determine which flag waves in Donbas, Luhansk, or Crimea? How many billions will we put at risk by increasing the odds of nuclear war?
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > perhaps the poorly performing Russian army will resort to measures, like nuclear weapons, that we would sincerely prefer them not to use. I think that this is the poorest decision that Russia could make, and I actually think Russia knows that too, which is why they posture about nuclear strikes without actually doing anything. > I think direct US involvement in a conventional war against Russia is a very, very bad outcome. That's a large part of why I oppose continuing the war and think it would be a good idea for there to be peace. I think ending this war as quick as possible if a nuke is used is a very good outcome and that involves overwhelming conventional force at this point. > It doesn't make me pro-Russia to prefer peace to war and want a settlement. being pro-peace is great, but it should be peace on Ukraines terms, not on the aggressors terms. > That just makes me pro-peace. Killing more Russians will not restore life to the dead or undo the tortures that were inflicted on the living. The reasoning that, because the Russians have done bad things we must prolong the war leads to needless additional suffering. The Russians are the ones who every day choose to prolong the war, they are the only ones who can choose to end it. > How many hundreds of thousands of people should die to determine which flag waves in Donbas, Luhansk, or Crimea?. Ask the Russians they are the only ones who are prolonging this war by staying in Ukraine and containing their genocide of the Ukrainian people. > How many billions will we put at risk by increasing the odds of nuclear war? I don't think this has increased the odds of nuclear war at all, there hasn't been a reported change at all in Russias nuclear posture and to be quite frank the Russian nuclear sabre rattling got old months ago.