4 ms·

What do you mean regarding Ukraine? Do you mean the US should have persuaded Ukraine to give up some of their land? I don’t fully understand what you mean with

What do you mean regarding Ukraine? Do you mean the US should have persuaded Ukraine to give up some of their land? I don’t fully understand what you mean with ‘negotiated settlement’. All I know is these ‘negotiating’ strategies don’t work with tyrannical regimes. Germany tried and failed. Trying to bring in China into the world economy also didn’t seem to make them give up their hunger to swallow Taiwan. The mindset of these dictators is different… see Bill Browder’s writings on this subject.

uni_rule 4y ago
He's taking the Kissinger approach with spheres of influence and allowing smaller nations to be held by "world powers" like poker chips to avoid M. A. D. situations, "you have your satellites and I have mine". Personally I think that mode of thinking and the context that birthed it are long dead but some people still subscribe to it 30 years after the Soviet Union imploded for... some reason I'm sure.
hakfoo 4y ago
I have to think that especially the China/Taiwan issue has quite a bit of historical baggage, because it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. Can we imagine such a scenario applied to a Western nation? Imagine if the US Civil War ended up with a "stub Confederacy"-- a few counties in Virginia still answering to Jefferson Davis. Or if one German state decided to carry on as the DDR after 1990. Now reinforce this by having major world powers declare an effectively limitless economic and military backstop to preserve this remnant-- pretty explicitly as a counter to the "victorious" nation's increasing power and importance. It would be a festering political issue for decades if not longer, no matter how many political and economic favours were splashed to "make up" for it.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. This is just propaganda to lay support for irredentism. The Chinese civil war ended long ago and this process is certainly not "internal" by any means. That is just made up to make the PRC's current push to annex the ROC more palatable. It's easier to sell it that way than explaining to the mainland populace the truth that its simply an unnecessary war of conquest.
  - hakfoo 4y ago
    > Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?"
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      >> Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. > How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?" My post was pretty short and (I'd claim) quite clear. When did I say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved"?
wrp 4y ago
> I don’t fully understand what you mean with ‘negotiated settlement’. He may be thinking of the agreement that Putin and Zelensky almost came to in the 2nd week of the war. The Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, initiated contact between the leaders and thinks they were nearly at a settlement when Washington/London intervened to block it. (From about time 2:20:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs)
- mopsi 4y ago
  That has been taken out of context. He later clarified that Washington and London were nudging Ukraine towards a peace deal, but after Bucha massacre was uncovered, they stopped doing that and instead increased military support for Ukraine. Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...
  - wrp 4y ago
    That article misrepresents what he said in the interview. He did not "later clarify" that Washington and London were supporting a peace deal. He insisted they were very cool to the whole idea. Also, in the interview, he said that the negotiations were killed at the 2-week point, and then Bucha happened at the 4-week point. He said that after Bucha, it was impossible to resume the negotiations (which had already been blocked).
rhaway84773 4y ago
And it’s not clear how giving Putin all they want for no cost for merely waving the threat of war, one which didn’t even include US military personnel involvement, is supposed to convince Putin that getting more is not a great idea. Especially when this game was already played before in 2014.
photochemsyn 4y ago
If the Russian-speaking population of Crimea and eastern Ukraine doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, how is that any different from Texas not wanting to be a part of Mexico? > "The Mexican-American War was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. It followed the 1845 American annexation of Texas, which Mexico still considered its territory..." (wiki) Of course it's equally clear Ukrainian-speaking western Ukraine wants nothing to do with Moscow, so this points to where a negotiated settlement could draw a new geopolitical boundary. Meanwhile, the USA has military forces in Syria supporting the Kurdish population, which doesn't seem to want to be ruled by Assad. How is that really any different (the geopolitical economics in that case appears mostly about not allowing Syria and Iran to cooperate economically and militarily, incidentally). Let's try to have an adult-level understanding of these conflicts, not the propaganda-for-gullible-children version of events and motivations.
- cloverich 4y ago
  > how is that any different from Texas not wanting to be a part of Mexico? Ok but to complete the scenario, the US would have needed to annex all of Mexico to be comparable right? That's what Russia is trying to do. > the propaganda-for-gullible-children version The adult version should include the extensive sowing of dissent, military support, and ethnic cleansing that occurs prior to asking those which country they want to belong to.

uni_rule 4y ago

He's taking the Kissinger approach with spheres of influence and allowing smaller nations to be held by "world powers" like poker chips to avoid M. A. D. situations, "you have your satellites and I have mine". Personally I think that mode of thinking and the context that birthed it are long dead but some people still subscribe to it 30 years after the Soviet Union imploded for... some reason I'm sure.

hakfoo 4y ago

I have to think that especially the China/Taiwan issue has quite a bit of historical baggage, because it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. Can we imagine such a scenario applied to a Western nation? Imagine if the US Civil War ended up with a "stub Confederacy"-- a few counties in Virginia still answering to Jefferson Davis. Or if one German state decided to carry on as the DDR after 1990. Now reinforce this by having major world powers declare an effectively limitless economic and military backstop to preserve this remnant-- pretty explicitly as a counter to the "victorious" nation's increasing power and importance. It would be a festering political issue for decades if not longer, no matter how many political and economic favours were splashed to "make up" for it.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. This is just propaganda to lay support for irredentism. The Chinese civil war ended long ago and this process is certainly not "internal" by any means. That is just made up to make the PRC's current push to annex the ROC more palatable. It's easier to sell it that way than explaining to the mainland populace the truth that its simply an unnecessary war of conquest.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  > Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?"
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    >> Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. > How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?" My post was pretty short and (I'd claim) quite clear. When did I say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved"?

wrp 4y ago

> I don’t fully understand what you mean with ‘negotiated settlement’. He may be thinking of the agreement that Putin and Zelensky almost came to in the 2nd week of the war. The Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, initiated contact between the leaders and thinks they were nearly at a settlement when Washington/London intervened to block it. (From about time 2:20:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs)

mopsi 4y ago
That has been taken out of context. He later clarified that Washington and London were nudging Ukraine towards a peace deal, but after Bucha massacre was uncovered, they stopped doing that and instead increased military support for Ukraine. Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...
- wrp 4y ago
  That article misrepresents what he said in the interview. He did not "later clarify" that Washington and London were supporting a peace deal. He insisted they were very cool to the whole idea. Also, in the interview, he said that the negotiations were killed at the 2-week point, and then Bucha happened at the 4-week point. He said that after Bucha, it was impossible to resume the negotiations (which had already been blocked).

rhaway84773 4y ago

And it’s not clear how giving Putin all they want for no cost for merely waving the threat of war, one which didn’t even include US military personnel involvement, is supposed to convince Putin that getting more is not a great idea. Especially when this game was already played before in 2014.

photochemsyn 4y ago

If the Russian-speaking population of Crimea and eastern Ukraine doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, how is that any different from Texas not wanting to be a part of Mexico? > "The Mexican-American War was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. It followed the 1845 American annexation of Texas, which Mexico still considered its territory..." (wiki) Of course it's equally clear Ukrainian-speaking western Ukraine wants nothing to do with Moscow, so this points to where a negotiated settlement could draw a new geopolitical boundary. Meanwhile, the USA has military forces in Syria supporting the Kurdish population, which doesn't seem to want to be ruled by Assad. How is that really any different (the geopolitical economics in that case appears mostly about not allowing Syria and Iran to cooperate economically and militarily, incidentally). Let's try to have an adult-level understanding of these conflicts, not the propaganda-for-gullible-children version of events and motivations.

cloverich 4y ago
> how is that any different from Texas not wanting to be a part of Mexico? Ok but to complete the scenario, the US would have needed to annex all of Mexico to be comparable right? That's what Russia is trying to do. > the propaganda-for-gullible-children version The adult version should include the extensive sowing of dissent, military support, and ethnic cleansing that occurs prior to asking those which country they want to belong to.