4 ms·

Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. See

Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.

Timon3 3y ago
Well, surely you saw this coming, but I'll ask my previous question: how do you guarantee peace after the armstice? Why shouldn't Russia attempt the same thing again in a couple of years, since the war would have netted them territory (you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory)?
- masswerk 3y ago
  > you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory) You are aware, you are implying things. (By the same means I could suppose you want the invasion to succeed a 500K dead later, since you weren't ruling out this chance explicitly.)
  - Timon3 3y ago
    No, I'm not. You have mentioned an armistice and nothing further. Does your solution have more than just that? If not, how do you resolve my question?
    - masswerk 3y ago
      And you haven't mentioned anything that guarantees a specific outcome of the conflict.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Nobody can guarantee a specific outcome to the conflict. Back to the conversation that was happening, it was about hypothetical peace treaties. Are you going to answer the question about your suggested treaty? It was a reasonable question based on your phrasing and you're deflecting. It wasn't some kind of made up gotcha, like your deflection was. And if you won't answer it then you've gone from conversation to trolling.
        masswerk 3y ago
        So, to stick to the conversation, how is this different from the demand to know or guarantee the outcome of a political process beforehand? However, I'm not here to discuss specific politics, just principles of reasoning.
        Timon3 3y ago
        I guess I'll just add one to the number of "people who say they want peace, but can't answer the most simple question about keeping peace". One day I'll receive an answer, I'm sure!
        masswerk 3y ago
        And I'll add 1 to the number of people who say, "because I can't guarantee the outcome of a political process, I'll go for brute force, because I can't guarantee the outcome of this, as well." Where is the logic to this? (Isn't this even more at random? How does this contribute to the articulation of the will of the people? Isn't this, why we have such a thing as a political process in the first place? The only thing guaranteed will be slaughtering en mass. Also, if "peace" is just exhaustion, the next round of the conflict will be just around the corner, probably at an even larger scale, compare WWII following WWI. Where is any answer in this? Enforcing treaties – there had been the Minsk agreements, there had been Turkish diplomacy early on – and armistices and following through on this, is, however, at least some answer to the problem. On the other hand, if you reserve for strategic action "beyond politics", this is what you will get eventually. The answer, if there is any, is in removing the strategic option from any armed conflict.)
        Timon3 3y ago
        I am not talking about brute force. Haven't you noticed how I've never said a word about attacking Russia? Surely you can't be saying that defending your own country is "brute force" in any way. You're projecting and strawmanning in every reply. Funny you should mention the Minsk agreements. Why did Russia not keep to them? Why should we trust them with an armistice considering they already broke the Minsk agreements? The kicker is: We know that appeasement doesn't work. We know that if Russia gains any territory, they will attack again, and that if they don't the chance of another attack is massively smaller (since the population will not see the current war as a victory, making it political - and most likely literal - suicide). But somehow that doesn't matter to you, just like it doesn't matter to you what happens after the armistice.
wzdd 3y ago
Making peace by allowing an aggressor to expand their territory is called appeasement, and there are historical reasons why people are reluctant to do it: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-wa...
- masswerk 3y ago
  You are aware, that H. was actually disappointed that he didn't get what he wanted, namely war? (France and the UK would have missed on getting an entire cycle of the arms race into the field.)

Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.

Timon3 3y ago

Well, surely you saw this coming, but I'll ask my previous question: how do you guarantee peace after the armstice? Why shouldn't Russia attempt the same thing again in a couple of years, since the war would have netted them territory (you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory)?

masswerk 3y ago
> you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory) You are aware, you are implying things. (By the same means I could suppose you want the invasion to succeed a 500K dead later, since you weren't ruling out this chance explicitly.)
- Timon3 3y ago
  No, I'm not. You have mentioned an armistice and nothing further. Does your solution have more than just that? If not, how do you resolve my question?
  - masswerk 3y ago
    And you haven't mentioned anything that guarantees a specific outcome of the conflict.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Nobody can guarantee a specific outcome to the conflict. Back to the conversation that was happening, it was about hypothetical peace treaties. Are you going to answer the question about your suggested treaty? It was a reasonable question based on your phrasing and you're deflecting. It wasn't some kind of made up gotcha, like your deflection was. And if you won't answer it then you've gone from conversation to trolling.
      - masswerk 3y ago
        So, to stick to the conversation, how is this different from the demand to know or guarantee the outcome of a political process beforehand? However, I'm not here to discuss specific politics, just principles of reasoning.
        Timon3 3y ago
        I guess I'll just add one to the number of "people who say they want peace, but can't answer the most simple question about keeping peace". One day I'll receive an answer, I'm sure!
        masswerk 3y ago
        And I'll add 1 to the number of people who say, "because I can't guarantee the outcome of a political process, I'll go for brute force, because I can't guarantee the outcome of this, as well." Where is the logic to this? (Isn't this even more at random? How does this contribute to the articulation of the will of the people? Isn't this, why we have such a thing as a political process in the first place? The only thing guaranteed will be slaughtering en mass. Also, if "peace" is just exhaustion, the next round of the conflict will be just around the corner, probably at an even larger scale, compare WWII following WWI. Where is any answer in this? Enforcing treaties – there had been the Minsk agreements, there had been Turkish diplomacy early on – and armistices and following through on this, is, however, at least some answer to the problem. On the other hand, if you reserve for strategic action "beyond politics", this is what you will get eventually. The answer, if there is any, is in removing the strategic option from any armed conflict.)
        Timon3 3y ago
        I am not talking about brute force. Haven't you noticed how I've never said a word about attacking Russia? Surely you can't be saying that defending your own country is "brute force" in any way. You're projecting and strawmanning in every reply. Funny you should mention the Minsk agreements. Why did Russia not keep to them? Why should we trust them with an armistice considering they already broke the Minsk agreements? The kicker is: We know that appeasement doesn't work. We know that if Russia gains any territory, they will attack again, and that if they don't the chance of another attack is massively smaller (since the population will not see the current war as a victory, making it political - and most likely literal - suicide). But somehow that doesn't matter to you, just like it doesn't matter to you what happens after the armistice.

wzdd 3y ago

Making peace by allowing an aggressor to expand their territory is called appeasement, and there are historical reasons why people are reluctant to do it: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-wa...

masswerk 3y ago
You are aware, that H. was actually disappointed that he didn't get what he wanted, namely war? (France and the UK would have missed on getting an entire cycle of the arms race into the field.)