3 ms·

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 he

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.
    - masswerk 3y ago
      You may also note that Zelenskyy was running and was elected on a ticket to stick to Minsk II and fixing relations with Russia, and this wasn't followed trough (eventually appeasing Azov, instead). The conflict is not just the invasion, rather it's the final escalation after years of built-up towards this. Several millions were already displaced before, fleeing to either side. But, apparently, this conflict served some purpose… But I really don't want to discuss particulars. We may keep in mind, for there being a conflict, there must be several, incompatible perspectives on the subject in question, there have to be "contested concepts". This question of concepts has to be addressed and to be resolved, and this is a political agenda. The question is really, do we want to address the underlying conflict or just the armed escalation, or just a particular of several steps of escalation? However, it must be made clear, beyond any doubt, that armed conflict doesn't resolve anything. BTW, a story from my own backyard: Austria and Italy were in a state of conflict over the question of South Tyrol for decades. Even with basic treaties (Gruber–De Gasperi agreement), minority protections and autonomy in place, things were escalating steadily. Austria handed out passports, there were dedicated news segments in public broadcasting on a regular basis, and this eventually escalated in tolerated (or even sponsored) terrorism in the late 1960s, which wasn't especially unwelcome on the Italian side in the name of the "strategy of tensions". This was going nowhere. However, in order for Austria joining the EU, this conflict had to be dissimulated and eventually resolved, and both sides managed to crack down on the structures supporting the conflict. And, voila, nowadays, this isn't even a topic. In hindsight, it's just a ridiculous episode. The younger generation probably isn't even aware of this having been a thing.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        [flagged]
        masswerk 3y ago
        Sorry, I'm not aware that armed conflict would have solved anything after WWII, with the possible exception of the Cambodia intervention (but this was a short lived action with intensive political reconstruction following up to this.) To me, this just seems naive. Regarding Austria–Italy as a potential parallel: There are notable differences. There had been an autonomy granted and minority language and cultural rights asserted by Italy, and Austria was the official power of guaranty for the autonomy. Neither of this was ever gained in the Ukraine (some of the rights granted in the previous constitution were eventually revoked). The land in question was the Southern part of Tyrol, with a predominantly German speaking population. (This really goes back to the 19th century and a (failed) military action serving the purpose of a Southern diversion in the greater context of the German unification on the one hand – i.e., blame Bismarck –, and the Italian unification on the other hand, and the territory was eventually granted to Italy in the treaty of St. Germain in the aftermath of WWI, as this had been a promised price for Italy switching alignment.)

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.
  - masswerk 3y ago
    You may also note that Zelenskyy was running and was elected on a ticket to stick to Minsk II and fixing relations with Russia, and this wasn't followed trough (eventually appeasing Azov, instead). The conflict is not just the invasion, rather it's the final escalation after years of built-up towards this. Several millions were already displaced before, fleeing to either side. But, apparently, this conflict served some purpose… But I really don't want to discuss particulars. We may keep in mind, for there being a conflict, there must be several, incompatible perspectives on the subject in question, there have to be "contested concepts". This question of concepts has to be addressed and to be resolved, and this is a political agenda. The question is really, do we want to address the underlying conflict or just the armed escalation, or just a particular of several steps of escalation? However, it must be made clear, beyond any doubt, that armed conflict doesn't resolve anything. BTW, a story from my own backyard: Austria and Italy were in a state of conflict over the question of South Tyrol for decades. Even with basic treaties (Gruber–De Gasperi agreement), minority protections and autonomy in place, things were escalating steadily. Austria handed out passports, there were dedicated news segments in public broadcasting on a regular basis, and this eventually escalated in tolerated (or even sponsored) terrorism in the late 1960s, which wasn't especially unwelcome on the Italian side in the name of the "strategy of tensions". This was going nowhere. However, in order for Austria joining the EU, this conflict had to be dissimulated and eventually resolved, and both sides managed to crack down on the structures supporting the conflict. And, voila, nowadays, this isn't even a topic. In hindsight, it's just a ridiculous episode. The younger generation probably isn't even aware of this having been a thing.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - masswerk 3y ago
        Sorry, I'm not aware that armed conflict would have solved anything after WWII, with the possible exception of the Cambodia intervention (but this was a short lived action with intensive political reconstruction following up to this.) To me, this just seems naive. Regarding Austria–Italy as a potential parallel: There are notable differences. There had been an autonomy granted and minority language and cultural rights asserted by Italy, and Austria was the official power of guaranty for the autonomy. Neither of this was ever gained in the Ukraine (some of the rights granted in the previous constitution were eventually revoked). The land in question was the Southern part of Tyrol, with a predominantly German speaking population. (This really goes back to the 19th century and a (failed) military action serving the purpose of a Southern diversion in the greater context of the German unification on the one hand – i.e., blame Bismarck –, and the Italian unification on the other hand, and the territory was eventually granted to Italy in the treaty of St. Germain in the aftermath of WWI, as this had been a promised price for Italy switching alignment.)