Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Skoop]

So chaimberlain appeasement is the answer for you ?  We tried that with Obama in 2014, and here we are in 2022 dealing with Putin again because we didn't in 2014.  And if we don't now, we'll be dealing with him again when he comes for Poland or Estonia.  The time has come to take Putin down, just be thankful the Ukrainians just want weapons and money to do the job.

I'm not a fan of blinken either, but the statement is still true, Russia is the aggressor.  If the war is so painful for them, then leave.  Ukraine can't, it's their home.

[Skoop]

Lol my fat fingers double posted.

[Jarhead0331]

So chaimberlain appeasement is the answer for you ?  We tried that with Obama in 2014, and here we are in 2022 dealing with Putin again because we didn't in 2014.  And if we don't now, we'll be dealing with him again when he comes for Poland or Estonia.  The time has come to take Putin down, just be thankful the Ukrainians just want weapons and money to do the job.

I'm not a fan of blinken either, but the statement is still true, Russia is the aggressor.  If the war is so painful for them, then leave.  Ukraine can't, it's their home.

Chamberlain in 1938 and Russia in 2022 are completely different situations. The stakes are dramatically higher in the modern world; a world with vast nuclear arsenals.  Think about that...75,000,000 - 85,000,000, plus people were killed in WWII and yet today, the stakes are dramatically higher. Thus, I find the comparison grossly inappropriate and shocking how oft-quoted it is.  That is not to say that I am in favor of "appeasement". I am simply in favor of exploring all options, particularly those that would result in a diplomatic solution and end the war as quickly as possible. Nukes or not, the longer the war rages, the greater the suffering and ramifications will be globally on numerous fronts...world economies, hunger and starvation, instability, civil disorder, more authority willingly yielded to governments, more power and influence to the exceptionally wealthy few. I am simply not prepared to say that a diplomatic solution shouldn't be considered with the knowledge that to see this war through to the bitter end could mean global nuclear warfare. I think those who say "so be it" are either being flippant and not serious, or are just completely deranged. Such a mentality is absurd to me...particularly as an American who feels that for too long, the policies of my country have meddled in the affairs of far off nations with little to no domestic benefit or advantage. What I see now is a war that is certainly benefiting some, at the cost to so many more and I am mystified to see that so many seem to be so excited by the prospect of prolonged destruction. Where does such ardent zest in the face of such potentially severe consequence come from?  More importantly, why are those who seek only to propose alternate solutions to a never-ending war, or worse, a war that ends civilized life, so quickly to be silenced or ridiculed? These voices of reason should be heard and respected, not castigated.

[JasonPratt]

A pair of Ukrainian T64BM2 tanks taking shots -- but the real reason for the footage is a bit of master-level trolling on the front of the closest tank...

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/xx5i9m/ukrainian_t64bm2s_firing_during_the_offensive_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

:o :o :DD

Man, the central newsroom propagandists will be running that on a 24 hour loop as evidence!

(It belongs to a 2018 Jeep Renegade registered in the US, btw.)

[Skoop]

Not trying to ridicule you.  The chamberlain appeasement example does ring true.  The thought of a horrific Great War is the same as nuclear war today.  At some point the aggressor has to be confronted.  We can't just let Putin show videos of his nukes on trains, and we all cower and fold or throw Ukraine under the bus.

I think the best diplomatic solution I've seen is what Sir Andrew proposed.  That actually seemed pretty fair.

Like Reagan said "peace through strength".

[Jarhead0331]

Not trying to ridicule you.  The chamberlain appeasement example does ring true.  The thought of a horrific Great War is the same as nuclear war today.  At some point the aggressor has to be confronted.  We can't just let Putin show videos of his nukes on trains, and we all cower and fold or throw Ukraine under the bus.

I think the best diplomatic solution I've seen is what Sir Andrew proposed.  That actually seemed pretty fair.

Like Reagan said "peace through strength".

Nobody has suggested, of which I am aware, that we "cower and fold". Where are you, and anyone else making the argument against exploring diplomatic solutions, getting this from? There is a vast gulf between considering all diplomatic solutions and bending over to take it up the rear end. This hyperbole is simply way off base.

...and for what its worth, and for the sake of discussion, why not throw Ukraine "under the bus" or at least encourage it to make some concession to end the conflict? What, less than a year ago it was considered one of the most corrupt nations on the planet and yet today its a model of democratic resistance to tyranny? It is striking how quickly a narrative can change.  Nobody wants to consider this though or even ask, "why"?

[Skoop]

I'm referring to the hypothetical plan sir Andrew laid out a few pages back where the UN steps in and creates a dmz to cool things off.  Then maybe talk about where things stand as far is voting or what local people want. 

But simply handing over crimea or Donbas to appease Putin with his off ramp is essentially throwing Ukraine under the bus.

Also, Ukraine has the initiative on the battlefield.  So why not see this play out ?  Let the Ukrainians keep attacking and see where it leads.  Why quake in your boots over nuclear saber rattling when our side is winning ?

[Jarhead0331]

Also, Ukraine has the initiative on the battlefield.  So why not see this play out ?  Let the Ukrainians keep attacking and see where it leads.  Why quake in your boots over nuclear saber rattling when our side is winning ?

Once again, there you go with the hyperbole. It's not about "quaking in boots". It's about ending human death and suffering. And yes, Ukraine has seized the initiative, which is of course a good thing overall, but the more the conventional military situation deteriorates for Russia, the more dangerous and unpredictable the situation becomes for the rest of the world in terms of escalation. 

[al_infierno]

We have to remember that by all accounts, Putin and his cronies are not in a clear or rational state of mind and have not been for some time.  I fully agree in principle that you have to stand up to gangster tactics and meet them with force to prevent them from just continuing shitty behavior in the future.  But it's not entirely clear how self aware Putin is at this point - if he's so deluded that he genuinely thinks Russians are being bullied by the big, bad, meany Ukrainians backed by the bigger, badder, meanier NATO, then pushing him into a corner is liable to "prove" his point (in his own reality) and make him more likely to resort to desperate measures to punish those he feels wronged him.... in this case, that would be literally all of us.

[Skoop]

Also, Ukraine has the initiative on the battlefield.  So why not see this play out ?  Let the Ukrainians keep attacking and see where it leads.  Why quake in your boots over nuclear saber rattling when our side is winning ?

Once again, there you go with the hyperbole. It's not about "quaking in boots". It's about ending human death and suffering. And yes, Ukraine has seized the initiative, which is of course a good thing overall, but the more the conventional military situation deteriorates for Russia, the more dangerous and unpredictable the situation becomes for the rest of the world in terms of escalation.

Look I get it let's be cautious and make smart moves, but Putin seeming unhinged could very well be part of the saber rattling act along with the nukes.  I just don't see a way out of this that isn't Ukraine reclaiming all it's land including crimea or caving into Putin's unhinged demeanor, that in turn he'll spin for a victory.  Then 5 to 10 years later, he'll be back at it again.

[al_infierno]

All I know for certain is that I'm glad as hell I'm not the one who has to make the decisions.

[Skoop]

All I know for certain is that I'm glad as hell I'm not the one who has to make the decisions.

True

But don't sell your selves short, great discussion from all sides is what makes this topic so compelling.  Some of the articulation you guys have done in here is far better than some of the politicians making the decisions.

[Jarhead0331]

All I know for certain is that I'm glad as hell I'm not the one who has to make the decisions.

True

But don't sell your selves short, great discussion from all sides is what makes this topic so compelling.  Some of the articulation you guys have done in here is far better than some of the politicians making the decisions.

True, but honestly...they set the bar VERY low.

[GDS_Starfury]

some corruption indexes for y'all.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-corrupt-countries

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-rank

[FarAway Sooner]

Jarhead, that's because most US politicians stopped trying to solve problems for our country 10 or 15 years ago.  They're all about being (re)elected as a necessary precondition for saving the world.  It's funny how that works, but such is our system when only about 20% of elected officials face viable competition in their own general elections.

I do think exploring diplomatic solutions is certainly a tool that everybody should use.  I've seen not even a hint from Putin that he's taking negotiations seriously or has an ounce of remorse for the way the war is turning against him and his country men.  He is a blatant aggressor, his soldiers seem to be committing far more dramatic humanitarian atrocities, and he continues to engage in behavior that--for the sake of a stable future--we can't afford to give any rewards for. 

Wile I appreciate what Sir Andrew proposes as a likely middle ground, I even find myself bristling at giving Putin that much.  He's acting like a madman with his arsenal of nuclear weapons, but if we do anything that doesn't result in a full Russian withdrawal to their pre-2014 borders, I think we provide too much incentive for others to act exactly the same going forward.  And we give every country that can afford it a strong incentive to get nuclear weapons and start acting crazily.

The ideal long-term solution would be regime change in Russia.  I think trying to enforce unconditional surrender on a nuclear superpower is probably reckless, but I'd much rather the Russian people solve this problem than the rest of the world solve this problem.  It's unclear how much blood has to be shed before the Russians acknowledge that maybe sending troops into Ukraine wasn't such a good idea.