old salt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:32 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:27 am
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:26 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:13 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:32 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:09 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 8:24 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:41 am
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.
Those 3 points are (imo) what we are currently telling Ukraine, in our actions & our words, direct & indirect.
We can levy unilateral sanctions but we can't force the rest of the world to comply.
Likewise with seizing assets. If we overreach, we could jeopardize our leadership position.
We're definitely not doing so in our official words, nor in the increasing armaments.
We're saying it's going to be hard and likely not quick.
If you mean by "we" the right wing media and politicians, who have suddenly embraced isolationism now that a Dem is the POTUS, then I understand what you mean. But that's not the official stance, nor the ongoing national support of a majority of Americans.
I do think that could shift further "defeatist" under the ongoing onslaught of right wing politicians and media, but it's definitely not where we are now.
You're listening through rose colored ear plugs (especially to Gen Milley), hearing only what you want to hear.
The trend in polling of US domestic support is downward. That's why Zelensky is now saying they can win in '23.
The EUroburghers are wavering. The delivery of Leopards is slowing & Germany is backing off their defense budget increases.
I'm responding to your claims that we've been "telling" Ukraine those 3 things.
That's incorrect, indeed it's a "lie", a work of propaganda.
I've read your subsequent discussion with a fan, so I don't want to repeat it, but you indeed implied that Russia doesn't have the problem of running out of munitions...they MAY solve this problem with China's help, but MAY not...indeed, it currently looks like the US and West calling it out may have stopped that move in its tracks. Xi is making lots of face-saving public noises, which analysts are suggesting may mean they've decided to back off.
So...right now, Ukraine is in an improving position militarily whereas Russia's position is weakening fast, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, definitely impacting military morale, and likely impacting domestic opinion.
Right now, Ukraine really does have a chance to "win" this war in 2023...IF it gets sufficient support to do so...or it will go longer. They're going to either quickly push Russia out, which will happen rather suddenly when the tide turns hard, or slowly.
Yes, polling in the US is being influenced by our own "White Christian Nationalist", "America First" partisans and media hacks. It's a serious issue.
You are participating in this pro-Putin, anti-European propaganda and have been doing so for years.
I watched an interview with Sholtz and Germany is not "backing off". That's anti-european propaganda again.
You were wrong about the Europeans', including Germany's, willingness and capability to dramatically shift their energy sector away from Russia. You're wrong about their resolve to increase their military capacities. Ramping up production is a major effort and they're on that. Doing it.
Leopards are now beginning to be delivered to Ukraine.
Frankly, I'm much more concerned about getting them the longer range precision armaments, but tanks will be important too.
That all said, China supplying weapons to Russia would likely prolong the war, increase casualties on both sides. But I think Ukraine will still prevail in pushing Russia out; China's entry may shut up our right wing...who love to hate on China, if not Putin.
It would be tragic if China does so in a significant way, and would be a huge deterrent to their efforts to do business with Europe and the global south, as well as the US...I think they're going to back off.