All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

Just one question for you:

Is Russia a threat? If this report is true, Putin needs to go. Period. Full stop.

Disagree and you're a monster and worthy of no further discussion.

"At least 20 torture centers in the recently liberated Ukrainian city of Kherson have direct financial links to the Kremlin, according to a team of international lawyers helping Ukraine investigate alleged Russian war crimes.

The new evidence comes one year after Kherson was captured by Russian forces. It was the first major Ukrainian city to fall during Moscow’s full-scale invasion. In November, Ukrainian forces liberated the southeastern city, once home to more than 280,000 people.

“Working closely with Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General, a paper trail has been exposed that shows that the main torture chambers in Kherson and those administering them do so through the financial support of the Russian state,” Wayne Jordash, an international human rights lawyer and managing partner of the law firm Global Rights Compliance, told CNBC.

Jordash added that the team of lawyers, experts and investigators uncovered that the torture sites were directly managed by several Kremlin security agencies, including Russia’s Federal Security Services, known as the FSB, successor to the KGB."

No more equivocating and whining that various states didn't do enough to protect themselves.

Tell us who you really are and what you really stand for.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/ukraine ... emlin.html

Or, let me guess, it's all "fake news." That it?

Old Sailor blames Biden…..he just wants the POTUS to be successful, until he doesn’t.

What are you two prepared to do to remove Putin from power ? Will you be bringing him to justice too ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

Just one question for you:

Is Russia a threat? If this report is true, Putin needs to go. Period. Full stop.

Disagree and you're a monster and worthy of no further discussion.

"At least 20 torture centers in the recently liberated Ukrainian city of Kherson have direct financial links to the Kremlin, according to a team of international lawyers helping Ukraine investigate alleged Russian war crimes.

The new evidence comes one year after Kherson was captured by Russian forces. It was the first major Ukrainian city to fall during Moscow’s full-scale invasion. In November, Ukrainian forces liberated the southeastern city, once home to more than 280,000 people.

“Working closely with Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General, a paper trail has been exposed that shows that the main torture chambers in Kherson and those administering them do so through the financial support of the Russian state,” Wayne Jordash, an international human rights lawyer and managing partner of the law firm Global Rights Compliance, told CNBC.

Jordash added that the team of lawyers, experts and investigators uncovered that the torture sites were directly managed by several Kremlin security agencies, including Russia’s Federal Security Services, known as the FSB, successor to the KGB."

No more equivocating and whining that various states didn't do enough to protect themselves.

Tell us who you really are and what you really stand for.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/ukraine ... emlin.html

Or, let me guess, it's all "fake news." That it?

Old Sailor blames Biden…..he just wants the POTUS to be successful, until he doesn’t.

What are you two prepared to do to remove Putin from power ? Will you be bringing him to justice too ?

Sit on my couch and listen to some more Wayne Shorter.

[MDlaxfan76]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

I read that as NATO agrees with Zelensky and me.
Preparing for it.

On the issue of war crimes and accountability, I would expect those trials to happen, in absentia, with ongoing sanctions being the result...until Putin is pushed from power by fellow Russians. I don't expect an invasion of Russia and its complete defeat ala WWII and the Nazis.

[old salt]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

I read that as NATO agrees with Zelensky and me.
Preparing for it.

I read it as sufficient deterrence to prevent Putin from invading NATO territory.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Again, why misrepresent what he's saying?

YOU may think the US will send troops to the ground in Ukraine, but that sure as heck isn't what Zelensky said. Nope, he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

Why do you think the countries that are donating the highest % of their GDP to Ukraine happen to be these neighboring countries, closest to the next front lines, should Ukraine fall?

OBVIOUSLY because they want Ukraine to defeat Russia.

I am not misrepresenting him....I am listening to his words and playing-it-out-for-the-longlook. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that he is implicitly saying.....there is going to be a time where money is not enough if the people of UK can no longer hold russia back.

Let's pray that it never comes to needing bodies on the ground....that is the primary argument, to which I believe we can both agree.

Great minds think alike….. https://twitter.com/ronfilipkowski/stat ... -R-vxJqqOw

[MDlaxfan76]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

I read that as NATO agrees with Zelensky and me.
Preparing for it.

I read it as sufficient deterrence to prevent Putin from invading NATO territory.

That's the hopeful take.
But obviously NATO thinks that those countries are at serious risk of being invaded.

And how much greater would that danger be if Russia had rolled Ukraine in the first half of last year?

Of if NATO hadn't thrown its financial and military weight to Ukraine, if the EU hadn't joined the US in the sanctions, if the EU hadn't moved so strongly to wean itself from Russian oil?

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

[cradleandshoot]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

I read that as NATO agrees with Zelensky and me.
Preparing for it.

I read it as sufficient deterrence to prevent Putin from invading NATO territory.

That's the hopeful take.
But obviously NATO thinks that those countries are at serious risk of being invaded.

And how much greater would that danger be if Russia had rolled Ukraine in the first half of last year?

Of if NATO hadn't thrown its financial and military weight to Ukraine, if the EU hadn't joined the US in the sanctions, if the EU hadn't moved so strongly to wean itself from Russian oil?

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

What happens when Putin finally determines he can't win the war in Ukraine? A wounded, cornered animal is always extremely dangerous. At what point does Putin untie all of the ropes tethering him to sanity. Hitler had his own vengeance weapons. I'm willing to bet that at some point in time Putin will make a decision just how far he is willing to go. What worries me is that his conventional land war tactics have been a miserable failure.

[MDlaxfan76]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

I read that as NATO agrees with Zelensky and me.
Preparing for it.

I read it as sufficient deterrence to prevent Putin from invading NATO territory.

That's the hopeful take.
But obviously NATO thinks that those countries are at serious risk of being invaded.

And how much greater would that danger be if Russia had rolled Ukraine in the first half of last year?

Of if NATO hadn't thrown its financial and military weight to Ukraine, if the EU hadn't joined the US in the sanctions, if the EU hadn't moved so strongly to wean itself from Russian oil?

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

What happens when Putin finally determines he can't win the war in Ukraine? A wounded, cornered animal is always extremely dangerous. At what point does Putin untie all of the ropes tethering him to sanity. Hitler had his own vengeance weapons. I'm willing to bet that at some point in time Putin will make a decision just how far he is willing to go. What worries me is that his conventional land war tactics have been a miserable failure.

Reasonable worry.

That's obviously been a serious concern of this Administration as well. They've been walking a fine line with supporting the defeat of Russia...in Ukraine...and economically...while withholding the weaponry necessary to dramatically defeat Russia...in Russia. The latter being a more rapid defeat and an attack of Russia's capitol by Ukraine, as its own capitol has been attacked. Full war.

The latter being quite likely to create the response about which you are worried.

Instead, the support has been to bolster Ukraine's ability to hold the line, defend their skies, and to slowly push back...with Russia ultimately pushed out...in a protracted way....enabling the sanctions to wear down Russia's capacity to actually wage war.

If Putin tries to go nuclear in a frenzy, those who have to execute such a crazed order know that the response will be the destruction of their homes and loved ones. will they execute that order or execute Putin?

Personally, I think we should enable the Ukrainians to strike further and harder, but only if they have the discipline to keep that within their territory or immediate proximity and only if they have the discipline to use these capabilities solely against military targets. Our technology has that precision, need to keep it limited.

At the end of the day, there will need to be a peace with the Russian people.

[DocBarrister]

Two Ukrainian military pilots are in the U.S. to be assessed on simulators. Part of the assessment is evaluating how long it would take to train Ukrainian pilots to fly fighter jets.

This is a very preliminary step, but I’m beginning to think it’s only a matter of time before F-16s are committed to Ukraine.

Two Ukrainian pilots are currently in the United States undergoing an assessment to determine how long it could take to train them to fly attack aircrafts, including F-16 fighter jets, according to two congressional officials and a senior U.S. official.

The Ukrainians’ skills are being evaluated on simulators at a U.S. military base in Tucson, Arizona, the officials said, and they may be joined by more of their fellow pilots soon.

U.S. authorities have approved bringing up to 10 more Ukrainian pilots to the U.S. for further assessment as early as this month, the officials said.

The arrival of the first two pilots marks the first time Ukrainians have traveled to the U.S. to have their skills evaluated by American military trainers. Officials said the effort has twin goals: to improve the pilots’ skills and evaluate how long a proper training program could take.

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ ... -rcna73426

DocBarrister

[old salt]

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

Do you consider an armistice with anything less than Ukraine recovering all territory lost since 2013 to be appeasement ?

F-16 tease --
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... -zelsensky
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian ... 023-03-05/
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ ... -rcna73426
https://eurasiantimes.com/assault-from- ... as-france/
https://eurasiantimes.com/mirage-2000c- ... ghter-jet/

[MDlaxfan76]

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

Do you consider an armistice with anything less than Ukraine recovering all territory lost since 2013 to be appeasement ?

F-16 tease --
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... -zelsensky
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian ... 023-03-05/
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ ... -rcna73426
https://eurasiantimes.com/assault-from- ... as-france/
https://eurasiantimes.com/mirage-2000c- ... ghter-jet/

accepting such armistice, not necessarily.

But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.

And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.

And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.

[youthathletics]

More equipment rolling in: https://www.google.com/search?client=sa ... =620&dpr=3

[Typical Lax Dad]

More equipment rolling in: https://www.google.com/search?client=sa ... =620&dpr=3

How do you feel about that?

[old salt]

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

Do you consider an armistice with anything less than Ukraine recovering all territory lost since 2013 to be appeasement ?

F-16 tease --
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... -zelsensky
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian ... 023-03-05/
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ ... -rcna73426
https://eurasiantimes.com/assault-from- ... as-france/
https://eurasiantimes.com/mirage-2000c- ... ghter-jet/

accepting such armistice, not necessarily.

But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.

And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.

And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.

With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?

[MDlaxfan76]

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

Do you consider an armistice with anything less than Ukraine recovering all territory lost since 2013 to be appeasement ?

F-16 tease --
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... -zelsensky
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian ... 023-03-05/
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ ... -rcna73426
https://eurasiantimes.com/assault-from- ... as-france/
https://eurasiantimes.com/mirage-2000c- ... ghter-jet/

accepting such armistice, not necessarily.

But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.

And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.

And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.

With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?

I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.

# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.

Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.

[old salt]

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

Do you consider an armistice with anything less than Ukraine recovering all territory lost since 2013 to be appeasement ?

F-16 tease --
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... -zelsensky
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian ... 023-03-05/
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ ... -rcna73426
https://eurasiantimes.com/assault-from- ... as-france/
https://eurasiantimes.com/mirage-2000c- ... ghter-jet/

accepting such armistice, not necessarily.

But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.

And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.

And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.

With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?

I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.

# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.

Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.

Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?

[DocBarrister]

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

Do you consider an armistice with anything less than Ukraine recovering all territory lost since 2013 to be appeasement ?

F-16 tease --
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... -zelsensky
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian ... 023-03-05/
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ ... -rcna73426
https://eurasiantimes.com/assault-from- ... as-france/
https://eurasiantimes.com/mirage-2000c- ... ghter-jet/

accepting such armistice, not necessarily.

But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.

And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.

And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.

With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?

It is odd that you always focus on Zelensky, Ukraine, the U.S., NATO, and the EU.

Only Putin and Russia are responsible for this war. Even if everyone stopped supplying Ukraine with weapons and other support … even if Zelensky orders Ukrainian forces to stop fighting … Putin will not end this war.

Putin will not end this war until Ukraine is brought under his full control. He will not stop until he is forced to stop.

And the only way to force Putin to stop is to castrate Russia militarily and to decimate its forces occupying Ukraine.

We aren’t even close to that point.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

It is odd that you always focus on Zelensky, Ukraine, the U.S., NATO, and the EU.

Only Putin and Russia are responsible for this war. Even if everyone stopped supplying Ukraine with weapons and other support … even if Zelensky orders Ukrainian forces to stop fighting … Putin will not end this war.

Putin will not end this war until Ukraine is brought under his full control. He will not stop until he is forced to stop.

And the only way to force Putin to stop is to castrate Russia militarily and to decimate its forces occupying Ukraine.

We aren’t even close to that point.

DocBarrister

We can't control Putin. We can influence the others. ...including China, who can influence Putin.

[MDlaxfan76]

It is odd that you always focus on Zelensky, Ukraine, the U.S., NATO, and the EU.

Only Putin and Russia are responsible for this war. Even if everyone stopped supplying Ukraine with weapons and other support … even if Zelensky orders Ukrainian forces to stop fighting … Putin will not end this war.

Putin will not end this war until Ukraine is brought under his full control. He will not stop until he is forced to stop.

And the only way to force Putin to stop is to castrate Russia militarily and to decimate its forces occupying Ukraine.

We aren’t even close to that point.

DocBarrister

We can't control Putin. We can influence the others. ...including China, who can influence Putin.

We can't control...but yes, we can "influence"...including Putin.
And yes, China can influence Putin.

[MDlaxfan76]

What if the US and EU had chosen instead the appeasement policies advocated on here?

Heck, if the US and EU adopted such now?

Do you consider an armistice with anything less than Ukraine recovering all territory lost since 2013 to be appeasement ?

F-16 tease --
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... -zelsensky
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian ... 023-03-05/
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ ... -rcna73426
https://eurasiantimes.com/assault-from- ... as-france/
https://eurasiantimes.com/mirage-2000c- ... ghter-jet/

accepting such armistice, not necessarily.

But pressuring the non-aggressor to accept such armistice? absolutely.
That's what some have been advocating.
Arguing that gains by an aggressor should be accepted, accepting the war atrocities committed.
And that the Russians have a valid argument that Ukraine has no right to exist (Ukraine was part of Russia, they didn't do enough to defend themselves...)
Appeasement.

And why 'not necessarily'? an armistice is merely a cessation of active military hostilities, a truce, not necessarily the permanent ending of all other such hostilities, eg cyber, and not necessarily addressing reparations and accountability.

And that would embolden aggressors, including Russia and China.
And certainly not provide justice.

With respect, that's double talk. Would you consider it appeasement for the US, or any NATO member, to tell Zelensky --
-- we don't think you can win back all the territory
-- we can't afford to continue to support you at this level beyond 2023
-- we will support your claims for reparations & war crimes tribunals, but we don't have the means to enforce them ?

I'm 100% for honest assessments discussed privately.

# 1 I think is not accurate. It's a matter of willingness to provide them the means.
#2 is definitely not accurate. Yes, making that statement is "appeasement"
#3 is arguable; There are lots of Russian assets that could be used for reparations as well as ways to extract "taxes" going forward. War crimes can be 'enforced' through sanctions for now, more when the situation allows.

Will these matters be hard?
absolutely and they should be discussed as such.
But I read defeatism in those 3 statements and that's the "justification" for appeasement.

Is that a "yes", you consider those 3 statements to be appeasement ?

Yes, certainly collectively.

As is any notion that Putin will be satisfied (appeased) with a portion of Ukraine...that's simply a precursor to more.

And expressing such a notion, prior to Russia's thorough military defeat, is active appeasement.

doing so officially would be tragically wrong.