Russia - US | Ukraine “peace negotiations”

[gtyellowjacket]

I do categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. Every argument you're making in favor of allowing Russia to keep territory in the name of "pragmatic reality" is an argument that could have been made (and essentially was made) in favor of the 1938 Munich Agreement. You know, the one that Britain and France thought was going to achieve peace in Europe. Because Hitler said he didn't want any more territory beyond the Sudetenland. Scout's honor.

I would rather continue a fairly small war now than move us closer to a big war later. The fact has always been, and remains, that there is only one party - the aggressor - who has the power to unilaterally stop this war and refuses to. The only way to stop the aggression, and to deter future aggression, is to avoid an outcome where aggression is rewarded. Absolutely we should keep sending American weapons into Ukraine if Russia - the party who can stop this at any time - refuses to withdraw. If we want to maintain a world order that makes clear that attempting to increase your country's territory though force is unacceptable, you have to enforce that with more than words. The question of boots on the ground is obviously much tricker because of a justified fear of direct conflict between nuclear powers. But if you take that option off the table entirely you lose part of your deterrence factor.

So you're basically proposing that we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years which has led to Russia expanding their territorial gains? Is that right? What am I missing?

 

[Healing]

rodo, I appreciate your persistence and articulation, in the face of insurmountable odds.

 

[lawtig02]

So you're basically proposing that we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years which has led to Russia expanding their territorial gains? Is that right? What am I missing?

That what Trump wants to do would make it even easier for Russia to keep expanding its territorial gains.

 

[Healing]

So you're basically proposing that we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years which has led to Russia expanding their territorial gains? Is that right? What am I missing?

Intentionally misreading other’s plainly articulated perspectives is why your opinion holds zero weight. Ie your troll game needs to evolve. Do better.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

That what Trump wants to do would make it even easier for Russia to keep expanding its territorial gains.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Trump is some diplomatic Mastermind. I'm not defending him but I'm also asking what people would do to get Ukrainian territory back from Russia. People calling reality appeasement should provide an alternative course of action and be ready to defend it.

I do think Trump's policy is closer to what's going to keep Russia from expanding their territory claims and is closer to what we're eventually going to get. I also wouldn't trust Putin's word on anything so the guarantee has to be more than just a treaty.

I think the Europeans are closest: Give Putin what he already has, or maybe do a little horse trading with the small amount of land Ukraine has in Russia. Put European boots on the ground but Ukraine is not a NATO member.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Intentionally misreading other’s plainly articulated perspectives is why your opinion holds zero weight. Ie your troll game needs to evolve. Do better.

Really? Then you tell me what's different in his proposal then what we've been doing for the last few years. Because I'm not seeing it.

 

[rodoheel]

So you're basically proposing that we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for years which has led to Russia expanding their territorial gains? Is that right? What am I missing?

I'd actually propose to increase our military support moreso than keep it the same. And we I say "our" I mean NATO collectively. I have no problem with Trump appropriately prodding the European members of NATO to increase their own commitment. I do have a problem with him taking Russia's side against our ally. And I do have a problem with him not acknowledging the reality that Russia started this war and can stop it at any time. Keeping the opprobrium directed squarely at Russia - rather than playing into Russian propaganda by victim-blaming Ukraine and our own allies - will keep the pressure on Russia high. Trump coming in and siding with Putin is giving Russia breathing room both politically and militarily that will help it continue the war rather than stopping it. Which Russia can do at any time.

Again: appeasement of an autocracy s a fundamentally self-defeating strategy. it has been proven over and over again. You either stand up firmly to autocracy, or its ambitions and territorial violations will simply grow until a much larger and more costly war is inevitable. Even leaving aside the point that turning a blind eye to Russian aggression will embolden Chinese aggression.

 

[Healing]

Because I'm not seeing it.

 

[BlueSmoke]

But it does in China and India and other parts of the world. Europe’s purchases would be replaced to the point Russia can wait out Ukraine. The only way any of it works is to stop ALL sales of Russian oil and gas.

I am going to count my response as a clear loss to you. Because, in your seven point response, no where did you mention China and India. In five of the points you clearly pointed to what Europe was doing. So now that I have pointed out that the current year fossil fuels sales no longer apply to Europe, then you shift the goal posts.

 

[BlueSmoke]

Just wondering: We gave Israel 20 Billion or more last year to fund their latest bombing. Which is incidental to every time they have a blow up to what we cough up. Not to mention for decades we give them upward to 5 billion a year.

Israel is never going to win. Which is the argument about Ukraine. So why the double standard?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I'd actually propose to increase our military support moreso than keep it the same. And we I say "our" I mean NATO collectively. I have no problem with Trump appropriately prodding the European members of NATO to increase their own commitment. I do have a problem with him taking Russia's side against our ally. And I do have a problem with him not acknowledging the reality that Russia started this war and can stop it at any time. Keeping the opprobrium directed squarely at Russia - rather than playing into Russian propaganda by victim-blaming Ukraine and our own allies - will keep the pressure on Russia high. Trump coming in and siding with Putin is giving Russia breathing room both politically and militarily that will help it continue the war rather than stopping it. Which Russia can do at any time.

Again: appeasement of an autocracy s a fundamentally self-defeating strategy. it has been proven over and over again. You either stand up firmly to autocracy, or its ambitions and territorial violations will simply grow until a much larger and more costly war is inevitable. Even leaving aside the point that turning a blind eye to Russian aggression will embolden Chinese aggression.

Okay. So you want to be sure that Trump is definitely blaming Russia which I don't think would really lead to what you're hoping for but would certainly help us diplomatically with some other allies.

You're also proposing more military spending for Ukraine. Certainly an option. The downside is it may not work and Ukraine may fall anyway and it may lead to a wider war.

It's definitely a concrete proposal. Not sure if it'll work but better than some of these folks.

 

[BlueSmoke]

I'm going to point out something I mentioned a little more then two weeks ago when it became obvious that Trump was tilting to Russia and the talks were about to begin in Saudi Arabi. There was a great deal of stress among Ukraine supporters that it could mean the end for Ukraine.

I simply said we would quickly know the true state of the war by how quickly Zelensky gave in. Well he didn't, which suggests the war may be going better for Ukraine then we comprehend.

The true state of the war is a relevant point with all this talk about Ukraine being a lost cause.

 

[Zoo_View]

The European oil/gas sales are a tiny fraction of $1 trillion. They were around $20 billion in 2024 and that was an increase from the prior year. Maybe $60 billion, total, since the beginning of the war (probably less). That's my whole point - the very article you cite makes perfectly clear that European spending Russian oil and gas is nowhere near $1 trillion (as do plenty of other sources of information) yet you continue to repeat the false information uncritically because you think it helps your point to do so.

I tend to share your frustration that the European countries can't just quit the Russian oil and gas cold turkey, and that revenue has surely been beneficial to Russia, but the idea that they're keeping Russia in the war is silly. (Including because that Russian oil and gas likely would have been bought by someone else, if not the European countries.) The major things that are going to make it hard for Russia to continue this war are manpower and heavy weaponry. The BBC just estimated that Russian military deaths since February 2022 are between 146k and 211k. Not including wounded, prisoners, or MIA. That's something like 2.5x-3.5x total US deaths in Vietnam, but the Russian deaths have occurred over a much shorter time period. Russia's military is depleted and demoralized. They had to bring in North Korean troops to help replace personnel losses, and those troops have been shredded. They've also had their heavy equipment (tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc) decimated - I've seen estimates over 50% - and in many cases are now relying on Soviet-era equipment. They can't easily replace that equipment, even with extra money from oil and gas sales.

Again, not once have you even attempted to grapple with the central issue with Trump's plan of appeasing Putin: appeasement of dictators with territorial ambitions does not work as a long term strategy. By definition it does not lead to a lasting peace. Putin isn't going to just stop. He's isn't going to be satisfied with a sliver of Ukraine, any more than he was satisfied with controlling Crimea or the Donbas before. He does not think Ukraine should exist as a country. He likely does not think the Baltics should exist as countries. As leader of Russia he has repeatedly invaded sovereign nations around Russia. He will continue to do so if he is rewarded for doing it. The only way to get a lasting peace with Russia is to defeat it and to reinforce the message we, along with NATO and the UN, have consistently delivered for the last 50+ years: we will not allow wars of territorial conquest anywhere in the world, and anyone who launches such a war will face the opposition of the united international community. If Russia and China perceive that we are no longer sending that message, they will feel emboldened to pursue (or continuing pursuing) the territorial wars they want to pursue.

The problem is we now have a President who doesn't understand, and has no interest in, the lessons of history. He waves away the importance of a stable world order where no one seeks to expand their own borders, through conquest or otherwise, because he in fact has the naked ambition of expanding America's borders. He sympathizes with Putin's ambition of expanding a new, modern Russian empire because he wants America to be imperialist too. You see it in his constant talking about expanding US territory to include Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, whatever.

The peace trump wants to pursue--Russian appeasement--not only will not help avert WWII, it's going to help cause it. Trump's foreign policy is lessening the US's great power role as a deterrent to imperialist ambitions, and in fact Trump's own imperialist ambitions are going to accelerate the process. To ignore this is to ignore history.

WWIII, not WWII

 

[superrific]

How about this as an idea: use the frozen Russian assets to reimburse the United States, if we must be reimbursed. And the rest to rebuild Ukraine (which we will be paying for one way or another, at least in part).

That's the biggest crime here from Trump. Well, the lack of intelligence sharing. But his moves to lift sanctions and unfreeze assets are ridiculous.

 

[superrific]

Letting an aggressor nation keep territory it has already taken by force with the promise they won’t take any more is literally the definition of appeasement as it applies to international war.

This is not correct. Appeasement is the unwillingness to make the aggressor fight for what it wants. Appeasement was "if we don't fight Hitler for some territory, he won't want to fight for the rest."

Now, we don't have to recognize the captured territory as belonging to Russia. If Russia annexes it, we don't have to respect that. That's basically the deal in the occupied territories in Israel. Israel took the Golan Height and the West Bank, and they control it. They think of it as their territory. We do not. (this principle doesn't really depend on who is the aggressor so I'm not going in any direction down that road).

But the idea that somehow we have to keep fighting until every last bit of territory is restored is quite silly. It's completely unrealistic, which is why it's not a principle ensconced anywhere in any treaty.

 

[rodoheel]

This is not correct. Appeasement is the unwillingness to make the aggressor fight for what it wants. Appeasement was "if we don't fight Hitler for some territory, he won't want to fight for the rest."

Now, we don't have to recognize the captured territory as belonging to Russia. If Russia annexes it, we don't have to respect that. That's basically the deal in the occupied territories in Israel. Israel took the Golan Height and the West Bank, and they control it. They think of it as their territory. We do not. (this principle doesn't really depend on who is the aggressor so I'm not going in any direction down that road).

But the idea that somehow we have to keep fighting until every last bit of territory is restored is quite silly. It's completely unrealistic, which is why it's not a principle ensconced anywhere in any treaty.

Appeasement to end conflict versus appeasement to avoid conflict may not be exactly the same thing, but it's still appeasement. Pressing Ukraine to cede its sovereign territory to Russia as part of a peace deal is appeasement regardless of whether Russia is currently occupying the territory by force.

We don't have to keep fighting, or to do anything. But giving international recognition to Russia having a rightful claim on a portion of Ukraine that it took by force and without justification s going to embolden every autocratic power with designs on adding territory (chiefly Russia and China). Everyone recognizes that the majority of human history has involved civilizations and countries constantly attacking each other, capturing territory, ceding territory by treaty, etc. But the entire point of the post-WWII order is supposed to be that the international community agrees we're not going to do that anymore. That we've moved past that into a new age of peace and stability where national borders will no longer be changed through external force. Giving up that order and returning to an age of imperialism and territorial aggression is no small thing to do. Especially given the manpower and level of weaponry available to the potential combatants in modern imperialist wars. Even without considering the possibility of nuclear war, it's terrifying.

The world has been relatively peaceful (relative to the majority of human history - I recognize that plenty of wars and atrocities have still occurred in the post-WWII era) for the last few decades. We've essentially been living under the umbrella created by a stable, US-led world order for several decades. We've been living under that umbrella for so long that people have forgotten what the rain feels like, so they don't understand why we need the umbrella. Going back to an age where the international community does not strongly reject the very concept of imperialist aggression will have potentially disastrous consequences for us all.

 

[nycfan]

 

[superrific]

Appeasement to end conflict versus appeasement to avoid conflict may not be exactly the same thing, but it's still appeasement. Pressing Ukraine to cede its sovereign territory to Russia as part of a peace deal is appeasement regardless of whether Russia is currently occupying the territory by force.

We don't have to keep fighting, or to do anything. But giving international recognition to Russia having a rightful claim on a portion of Ukraine that it took by force and without justification s going to embolden every autocratic power with designs on adding territory (chiefly Russia and China). Everyone recognizes that the majority of human history has involved civilizations and countries constantly attacking each other, capturing territory, ceding territory by treaty, etc. But the entire point of the post-WWII order is supposed to be that the international community agrees we're not going to do that anymore. That we've moved past that into a new age of peace and stability where national borders will no longer be changed through external force. Giving up that order and returning to an age of imperialism and territorial aggression is no small thing to do. Especially given the manpower and level of weaponry available to the potential combatants in modern imperialist wars. Even without considering the possibility of nuclear war, it's terrifying.

The world has been relatively peaceful (relative to the majority of human history - I recognize that plenty of wars and atrocities have still occurred in the post-WWII era) for the last few decades. We've essentially been living under the umbrella created by a stable, US-led world order for several decades. We've been living under that umbrella for so long that people have forgotten what the rain feels like, so they don't understand why we need the umbrella. Going back to an age where the international community does not strongly reject the very concept of imperialist aggression will have potentially disastrous consequences for us all.

This is starting to sound a lot like LBJ's justification for escalating in Vietnam, with a bit of WWI strategy thrown in.

There are many ways to combat aggression other than sending soldiers into meat grinders for some abstract principle of defending artificial boundaries.

I do not think the West's response to the Ukraine invasion, even if we were to concede all that territory right now, would embolden anyone. Russia has paid an incredibly steep price for its invasion. It was absolutely 100% not worth it. They have decimated their population; their economy remains utterly in tatters (regardless of oil revenue, which is not that significant), and the import restrictions have taken a toll.

We should not "recognize" the territory taken. We should not lift sanctions on Russia. We should not unfreeze Russian assets. Those are signs of strong rejection of imperialist aggression. Continuing to fight until the enemy is completely defeated is simply not realistic and it doesn't make much sense when you drill down.

 

[Callatoroy]

That what Trump wants to do would make it even easier for Russia to keep expanding its territorial gains.

You bitch, you moan, you hurl personal attacks but what you and wayne and boford, etc never do is offer your solution. Not some general pie in the sky "don't appease russia" bullshit.

If you don't accept russia keeping territorial gains:

How do you get russia out?
Who is going to use the weapons we send? Ukraine is about out of soldiers. Russia has more than ukraine
Why would sending them more weapons now all of a sudden work?
How long would you keep sending weapons to ukraine? 1 yr? 2 yrs. 5 yrs. 20 yrs?

 

[Callatoroy]

This is not correct. Appeasement is the unwillingness to make the aggressor fight for what it wants. Appeasement was "if we don't fight Hitler for some territory, he won't want to fight for the rest."

Now, we don't have to recognize the captured territory as belonging to Russia. If Russia annexes it, we don't have to respect that. That's basically the deal in the occupied territories in Israel. Israel took the Golan Height and the West Bank, and they control it. They think of it as their territory. We do not. (this principle doesn't really depend on who is the aggressor so I'm not going in any direction down that road).

But the idea that somehow we have to keep fighting until every last bit of territory is restored is quite silly. It's completely unrealistic, which is why it's not a principle ensconced anywhere in any treaty.

"But the idea that somehow we have to keep fighting until every last bit of territory is restored is quite silly. It's completely unrealistic..."

I completely agree with this. Why is it unrealistic?