3 ms·

No, just removing weapons doesn't foster peace. That is earned through working together and having socioeconomic shared interests, which ironically the people n

by rob_c 2y ago

No, just removing weapons doesn't foster peace. That is earned through working together and having socioeconomic shared interests, which ironically the people not the politicians have. And at no point is unilateral disarmament sensible, that is capitulation. But arming one side to the teeth and walking away after peace just leads to more violence. It's the basis of so many sci-fi stories and clearly what has happened in recent post WW2 history. It's a bad idea. Edit: also just ploughing in weapons wouldn't give peace or this conversation would be mute and people wouldn't be dying. Clearly a balance needs to be achieved. Counter armoured vehicle weapons for Ukraine is sensible and clearly worked in the opening hours without giving them ambition of hitting Russia in advance.

andrewflnr 2y ago
No, of course military aid to Ukraine is only the barest pre-requisite to negotiations that might possibly lead to lasting peace. This can only be achieved if future Russian aggression is strongly deterred. Do you really think Ukraine is going to attack Russia? They have no motive, they (along with the rest of Europe) were happy to do business with Russia until Russia's various aggressions (starting in 2014, mind you) soured them. No matter what happens they're not going to be in a state for aggression after this war, even if they have the appetite. Most of the arms we send them are being consumed. Even Russia will take a while to rebuild.
- rob_c 2y ago
  The aggressions started after Ukraine made moves (supported openly by unelected politically connected groups on _both_ sides) to join NATO after failing to do much to really make any attempt to deal with the corruptions around the gas supplies and arguable thefts. This with high level Washington persons involved. This is like saying Russia's number 2 decided to visit Mexico after a political landslide and that America would be happy about that. Last time anything similar happened we got the bay of pigs... Ideally a large demilitarised zone (which would obviously mean into Russian territories) would help people feel easier. That's unlikely to happen, but is the closest we'd get to something sensible. It's not about appeasement, but any peace is likely to involve land concessions. If not, the peace is American bought with huge interest terms which is closer to what we had crippling the kaiser and we all know how that ended... Now, given that highly likely scenario its a bad idea to leave Ukraine with large amounts of Western mid range armorments. They won't be looking to take St Petersburg, but in the sort term future they may look to reunite post soviet territories which will just put us back to square 1.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    The aggressions started after Ukraine made moves (supported openly by unelected politically connected groups on _both_ sides) to join NATO after failing to do much to really make any attempt to deal with the corruptions around the gas supplies and arguable thefts. NATO had nothing to do with it. The idea of joining NATO had long been dead and buried by 2014. At the time, Ukraine had a pro-Russian president who would never have taken a step toward NATO. Instead, Ukraine was in the final stages of signing an association agreement with the EU, which would have opened up European markets and employment opportunities for Ukrainians. Russia applied immense pressure (including trade embargo and threats to cut energy supply) on Ukraine's pro-Russian president to abandon the treaty. He succumbed to the pressure, but faced massive domestic protests, which did not subside no matter how much violence was applied. This culminated in police snipers killing over 100 people and the president fleeing to Russia, where he remains hiding to this day. Trying to portray a trade agreement with the EU as an existential threat to Russia was a tough sell, so Russians invented the entire NATO narrative.
    - rob_c 2y ago
      I'm not talking about trade with the EU I'm taking about actions taken by the "fatherland" party combined with visits by US secretary of state who was vocal about the party leader being arrested, who Russia wanted imprisoned, who was imprisoned by the Ukrainian people after a trial for corruption (in effect having stolen money from Russia)... This same political party which fails to make it into a significant position of power at home but still engages openly with foreign diplomatic entities close to or in the whitehouse included. Nothing conspiratorial, just 100% fact. Again this does not justify any military action, this is just the scene as things were before the war. This is akin to the reform party in the UK negotiating with China or the liberal party in the USA negotiating with the EU. It could, should and would be shutdown by the ruling party unless it benefited them in some way. Again imagine if a nation went through a revolution on the doorstep of America then Russia was to move to support this revolution unilaterally through arming them and supporting them. Regardless of subtitles this is the optics as seen by Russia. We know Ukraine was armed because otherwise there would be tanks in Kiev. Again this doesn't justify any military action, but the fact this happened behind the scenes and wasn't transparent concerns people. Everybody knows there's Russian assets in Georgia now, this could be benign military aid and rest or could be nuclear first strike assets. Given the lack of transparency we have to assume the latter, that is how risk assessment works.

by rob_c 2y ago

andrewflnr 2y ago

No, of course military aid to Ukraine is only the barest pre-requisite to negotiations that might possibly lead to lasting peace. This can only be achieved if future Russian aggression is strongly deterred. Do you really think Ukraine is going to attack Russia? They have no motive, they (along with the rest of Europe) were happy to do business with Russia until Russia's various aggressions (starting in 2014, mind you) soured them. No matter what happens they're not going to be in a state for aggression after this war, even if they have the appetite. Most of the arms we send them are being consumed. Even Russia will take a while to rebuild.

rob_c 2y ago
The aggressions started after Ukraine made moves (supported openly by unelected politically connected groups on _both_ sides) to join NATO after failing to do much to really make any attempt to deal with the corruptions around the gas supplies and arguable thefts. This with high level Washington persons involved. This is like saying Russia's number 2 decided to visit Mexico after a political landslide and that America would be happy about that. Last time anything similar happened we got the bay of pigs... Ideally a large demilitarised zone (which would obviously mean into Russian territories) would help people feel easier. That's unlikely to happen, but is the closest we'd get to something sensible. It's not about appeasement, but any peace is likely to involve land concessions. If not, the peace is American bought with huge interest terms which is closer to what we had crippling the kaiser and we all know how that ended... Now, given that highly likely scenario its a bad idea to leave Ukraine with large amounts of Western mid range armorments. They won't be looking to take St Petersburg, but in the sort term future they may look to reunite post soviet territories which will just put us back to square 1.
- mopsi 2y ago
  The aggressions started after Ukraine made moves (supported openly by unelected politically connected groups on _both_ sides) to join NATO after failing to do much to really make any attempt to deal with the corruptions around the gas supplies and arguable thefts. NATO had nothing to do with it. The idea of joining NATO had long been dead and buried by 2014. At the time, Ukraine had a pro-Russian president who would never have taken a step toward NATO. Instead, Ukraine was in the final stages of signing an association agreement with the EU, which would have opened up European markets and employment opportunities for Ukrainians. Russia applied immense pressure (including trade embargo and threats to cut energy supply) on Ukraine's pro-Russian president to abandon the treaty. He succumbed to the pressure, but faced massive domestic protests, which did not subside no matter how much violence was applied. This culminated in police snipers killing over 100 people and the president fleeing to Russia, where he remains hiding to this day. Trying to portray a trade agreement with the EU as an existential threat to Russia was a tough sell, so Russians invented the entire NATO narrative.
  - rob_c 2y ago
    I'm not talking about trade with the EU I'm taking about actions taken by the "fatherland" party combined with visits by US secretary of state who was vocal about the party leader being arrested, who Russia wanted imprisoned, who was imprisoned by the Ukrainian people after a trial for corruption (in effect having stolen money from Russia)... This same political party which fails to make it into a significant position of power at home but still engages openly with foreign diplomatic entities close to or in the whitehouse included. Nothing conspiratorial, just 100% fact. Again this does not justify any military action, this is just the scene as things were before the war. This is akin to the reform party in the UK negotiating with China or the liberal party in the USA negotiating with the EU. It could, should and would be shutdown by the ruling party unless it benefited them in some way. Again imagine if a nation went through a revolution on the doorstep of America then Russia was to move to support this revolution unilaterally through arming them and supporting them. Regardless of subtitles this is the optics as seen by Russia. We know Ukraine was armed because otherwise there would be tanks in Kiev. Again this doesn't justify any military action, but the fact this happened behind the scenes and wasn't transparent concerns people. Everybody knows there's Russian assets in Georgia now, this could be benign military aid and rest or could be nuclear first strike assets. Given the lack of transparency we have to assume the latter, that is how risk assessment works.