3 ms·

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

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'm not going to respond to another of your comments until you directly address and answer my central question. You've danced around it enough, and have tried accusing me of more than enough things - just come out and answer it directly, or I will assume you are a (possibly paid?) troll and stop engaging. HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT PEACE IS KEPT AFTER THE ARMISTICE? WHAT KEEPS RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING AGAIN?
    - masswerk 3y ago
      Can't you see there is no special problem? Even after a military conflict, you've to either actually go into that country and start an intensive political reconstruction (e.g., Germany & WWII – which is not an option here, because of the nuclear scenario) or you have to deal with the problem of resurgent conflicts (in the past 70 years or so, they always did pop again). You were contesting the need for a political solution. So, where is your special, proven way? On the other hand, if there's need for a political resolution, why have the military interlude, at all? If you are ignoring the conflict, assuming, there's just a bad actor and everyone else is just in the right, you're actually part of the problem and the resurgence will be nearly guaranteed. As can be observed in all those amazingly long-lived zones of conflict, where only instability is stable, we've established after WWII and we're constantly adding to. It simply doesn't work.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT PEACE IS KEPT AFTER THE ARMISTICE? WHAT KEEPS RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING AGAIN?
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        You keep criticizing their idea instead of explaining your own. This is a cheap trick to make your idea immune to criticism. You are not acting in good faith. They're not the one that should have been flagged here, for using all caps for a single line.

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'm not going to respond to another of your comments until you directly address and answer my central question. You've danced around it enough, and have tried accusing me of more than enough things - just come out and answer it directly, or I will assume you are a (possibly paid?) troll and stop engaging. HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT PEACE IS KEPT AFTER THE ARMISTICE? WHAT KEEPS RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING AGAIN?
  - masswerk 3y ago
    Can't you see there is no special problem? Even after a military conflict, you've to either actually go into that country and start an intensive political reconstruction (e.g., Germany & WWII – which is not an option here, because of the nuclear scenario) or you have to deal with the problem of resurgent conflicts (in the past 70 years or so, they always did pop again). You were contesting the need for a political solution. So, where is your special, proven way? On the other hand, if there's need for a political resolution, why have the military interlude, at all? If you are ignoring the conflict, assuming, there's just a bad actor and everyone else is just in the right, you're actually part of the problem and the resurgence will be nearly guaranteed. As can be observed in all those amazingly long-lived zones of conflict, where only instability is stable, we've established after WWII and we're constantly adding to. It simply doesn't work.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT PEACE IS KEPT AFTER THE ARMISTICE? WHAT KEEPS RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING AGAIN?
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      You keep criticizing their idea instead of explaining your own. This is a cheap trick to make your idea immune to criticism. You are not acting in good faith. They're not the one that should have been flagged here, for using all caps for a single line.