History has shown us that appeasement is the worst possible policy.
This parable works multiple ways.
And arguably in the case of Ukraine the appeasement already happened after 2014 Donetsk war.
I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed.
>https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/first-strike-how-the-po...
Additionally, after remilitarization, there were more opportunities to Strike. Rhineland, Anschluss of Austria... the longer you wait it's worse.
>I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed.
Wehrmacht was not close to being combat ready yet, and would get crushed by combined Polish-Czechoslovakian-Western Allies troops. Without Czechoslovakia opposing them, and Czech industry fully contributing to Hitler's war machine odds were drastically better for Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t)
>However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives.
And Ukraine is winning the war, saving 40 million Ukrainians from genocide.
That's actually very uncertain. If the war broke out, Hitler might get overthrown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy
Hitler's position was shaky at the time, but his success in Czechoslovakia made any opposition impossible and increased hunger for more.
Ukraine 2014. The West should have stopped Russia back then and there.
Russia is ok invading another country and killing it's populace. But the west shouldn't fight back incase it kills someone?
Why aren't you holding Russia to the same standard as everyone else. Why don't you require them to talk and 'appease' the west rather than invading?
But I think everybody here agrees with that, so what's the point of stressing it? You think Putin listens to my opinion?
Yes, and the West should be careful with military intervention, and consider whether it won't lead to more escalation and more death.
In fact, I think the EU could do more with economic sanctions. AFAIK we still buy oil from Russia.
I really don't get your POV Putin has repeatedly shown they he will invade other countries. If we don't stop him at Ukraine then next it may well be a nato member and then how much blood shed will there be?
Your suggested course just rewards aggression. Sometimes you need to stand up to bullies. Putin is a bully.
Chomsky made a nice comparison with Palestine. Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against Israeli apartheid by shooting rockets at them from Gaza strip?
Regarding my POV - I don't want NATO to get involved as long as it doesn't have to, because I worry about nuclear escalation. That should tell us, try to get serious about complete ban on nuclear weapons in the future, because they prevent exactly the type of action that you propose.
If my country wasn't a NATO member, then military aid against Russian invasion to Ukraine would be more acceptable to me. It is NATO that is making us helpless - we are bound by risk of escalation into a nuclear war. Simply, NATO was designed to handle a different type of threat. (Not to mention, we IMHO have somewhat less efficient military because we partly outsourced it to USA.)
I don't think what I suggest as an alternative (sanctions, resistance) rewards aggression. Occupying Ukraine is a big liability for Russia.
How does that defend Palestine in any way? It's a stupid revenge targeting civilians. If you're so helpless you can't act against military or targeted collaborators then don't do anything at all.
I would be the first to suggest to drop support to Ukraine, and even support acting against it, if they started to deliberately target Russian civilians - Belgorod is very close. Even more, they could produce large amount of chemical and even nuclear weapons if they chose, yet they don't do it.
Punishes the oppressors, in an attempt to make them stop oppressing. Same reasons why Ukrainians fight back against Russians.
And yes, he makes the same case, that Palestinians should instead attempt for a peaceful resolution and negotiation, despite it being extremely difficult (against a much stronger adversary, who doesn't respect them).
No, Ukrainians are fighting to defeat the aggressors. The main difference is that if they succeed, the occupier will not have anything to say. Palestinian tactics can only succeed by the mercy of the IDF.
In contrast to this, it is symmetric conflict, in which Russia targets citizens by desperation, but those losses are nothing compared to what would happen if they've succeeded.
Well, you can't have one without the other, there's clear evidence of that going back decades.
In general, I am in favor of nonviolent resistance (which might include economic sanctions, sabotages etc.) rather than military action. In fact, it is often easier to gain moral support that way.
However, I understand that many humans naturally choose the latter, for tribal reasons, despite it being overall a worse choice.
If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime, I don't think we need to draw a red line at the Ukraine border against the other nuclear superpower. And we should be negotiating.
First, I wouldn't call this authoritarian[1] but imperialistic[2].
But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
I do condemn both invasions!
So does many Americans politicians. Indeed a vocal minority opposed the US invasion at the time (they weren't prosecuted).
IMO, the way the US negotiates and works with allies makes these wars incomparable.
> But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
Both invasions were horrific. But the response to the US invasion of central Asia by other Asian powers was "eh, what can you do?". I don't see why the Russian invasion of Ukraine needs to be treated so differently, pouring in weapons, levelling sanctions, triggering various crisises, increasingly aggressive rhetoric and so forth. If Asia can get invaded and we all take it in stride, Europe can get invaded and we can admit the idea that we could again take it in stride. These people aren't so different from each other.
The response should be a lot more thoughtful. More people need to acknowledge that in all likelihood that Russia is acting deliberately in response to long-term pressure and not because Putin is a special evil.
I assume thought, that you favor some sort of negotiated settlement. How much territory should Ukraine cede to Russia in exchange for peace? And what would prevent Russia from coming back and taking another slice in a few years? Remember they already did this once before in 2014.
What credibility is left?
What protects, for example, the Baltic countries is not the threat that the US might take initiative to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia, no it is the vast conventional capabilities of the US.
Just supplying a relatively small amount of weapons to Ukraine is enough to destroy most of the Russian army.
The geographic situation largely explains why the Baltic States support the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland so strongly, and why Russia is opposed to it. With Sweden and Finland in NATO, the Baltic Sea will become NATO's internal sea. NATO would likely have naval and air superiority over it, which would keep supply lines open and give them a chance to defend the Baltic States with conventional weapons.
None of which NATO countries has offered to use in Ukraine.
I think logistics by railway would be problematic if NATO allies launched a few thousand cruise missiles.
Air power is of little use if your forces don't have access to the relevant area. The Baltic states are surrounded by Russian bases and air defenses, while NATO bases are far away. Right now, Kaliningrad is effectively a fortress that separates the Baltic states from the rest of NATO. Sweden and Finland give NATO air forces the option to bypass Kaliningrad and operate from bases that are closer to the Baltic states.
But yes, Sweden and Finland in NATO is nice. Also for the fact that NATO not intervening in aggression against Sweden or Finland is hard to imagine, so getting papers on the marriage is nice for all parties involved.
Also, as far as I understand, the combat radius fighter jets is quite short. It's something like 500 to 1200 km, depending on aircraft type and weapons load. Having bases 100 or 200 km closer is already a significant advantage.
>NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons
NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapons, NATO must also have them to keep parity.
Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. Genie's out of the bottle.
I disagree. Progress is being made (see ICANW), despite setbacks, some unfortunately coming from "the West", which is supposed to be morally more advanced.
And NATO doesn't need to keep parity with Russia, what for?
I also consider nuclear retaliation strike to be morally dubious. What's the point?
The point isn't that you win something with a second strike. The point is that second strike capability ensures no actor can make a first strike without risking consequence. It's about deterrent, not about winning.
Nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent. In this case from an adversary that has nuclear weapons - without those in stock NATO would be outmatched and vulnerable to being subject to the threat of using them.
At the end of the day, states with nuclear weapons get to push non-nuclear states around. Good luck getting Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea to disarm.
Getting the West to abandon their nuclear weapons would be morally reprehensible as those states would become subjects to the states that did not.
It's a nice dream, but:
1. It won't happen.
2. Nuclear weapons I believe are the most important reason why we did not have a conventional war in Europe for 80 years. Russia would not attack an adversary that was nuclear armed or in a nuclear sharing program.
I think, if NATO countries (and the U.S.) wanted to, they could make lot more effort to denuclearize. I don't think NATO can institutionally do it, though (it wasn't designed for it). For example, they could propose more aggressive mutual disarmament treaties, that would decrease arsenal in certain proportions on a timeline, with inspections. They don't do that, so I conclude that they don't really want to.
As for the peace - plenty of countries in Europe that are not involved in nuclear weapons and yet enjoy peace. As you said - nuclear countries bully the non-nuclear ones around, therefore, effort should be made to get rid of them completely.
The problem is you think they "own" them.
>If the US can invade the middle east
One nation they invaded was Iraq, and while catastrophic, they've created a democracy that later told US to fuck off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Fo...
You can very much argue against that, and I'd agree, but it's not comparable to colonial war of aggression to literally enslave and genocide free nation.
>I don't think we need to draw a red line at the Ukraine border against the other nuclear superpower.
They are far from anything super, as we've seen in Kharkiv Oblast last week.
which of course is the greater crime. Property rights for the ultra rich above everything else!
Why don't you give us your explanation?
It's just very odd to advocate for an appeasement policy when the aggressor keeps wanting more (first Crimea, then tried to take the whole Ukraine by going straight for the capital). It wasn't just Eastern Ukraine with Russian-speaking population, they went straight to the capital.
I'd say the west is perfectly fine with ignoring a lot of their principles for the sake of peace and money, China and Middle East are very good examples of it as you just said. The west was even perfectly happy to roll over their principles just to get the gas they needed from Russia. It looks like it's Russia that self destroyed all those economical agreements for the sake of wanting to expand their borders.
As long as that buffer is inside Russia, I would be fine with it as I suppose most others would.
It's not OK to suggest that countries can have a sphere of influence in 21st century. Each country chooses their alignment and alliance independently. Russia has repeatedly shown to be a poor neighbour, so it shouldn't be a surprise to them if independent countries decide to turn away from Russia.
US and Russia simply can not agree between themselves what should be Ukraine's place in the world. That kind of world order does not exist any more.
>US and Russia simply can not agree between themselves what should be Ukraine's place in the world.
I’ll argue the opposite. The Ukraine has no inherent right to join NATO. Ukraine isn’t going to join NATO unless the US wants it to join and this is morally correct in every way considering the obligations of article 5. Additionally every other NATO member has the right to veto expanding the alliance (this is fact btw not opinion).
Additionally the US has every right to negotiate with Russia over Ukraine joining should the US wish to.
This is not what is argued. I agree with you, it's of course up to NATO and EU to decide who they accept as members, and they may include Russian interests in the decision if they want.
Point is that Russia has no say over Ukraine's ambitions. The war started because Ukraine wanted away from Russia and moved towards Western values. This is unquestionably Ukraine's right. And if they don't succeed at joining the EU, then their place may be a non-aligned country with Western values and ambitions. That Russia must simply accept and move on.
>Point is that Russia has no say over Ukraine's ambitions...That Russia must simply accept and move on.
Well, that's the crux of the matter isn't it. They've not accepted it and haven't moved on and unless/until they are expelled from Ukraine they have a rather large amount of influence over what happens there.
It's interesting to watch that's for sure. One way or another the world is going to look different when this is over.
It needs NATO's permission because that's how NATO works, but it doesn't need Russian permission
>It needs NATO's permission because that's how NATO works
Sorry to be a pedantic asshole but those statements are in opposition to each other. What you want to say is that they should they should have the freedom to apply and join if accepted.
>but it doesn't need Russian permission
In an ideal world they shouldn't need Russian permission, unfortunately we seem to live in a world where might makes right.
Ask your Congressman about pulling out of Guam and closing all overseas military bases.
>That kind of world order does not exist any more.
This is, ironically, enough, something that Putin started saying to us since he came into power. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. He lobbied the west to adhere to a rules based international order rather than couping or invading whomever we damn well pleased.
In 2003 he said "please respect Iraq's national sovereignty and international law". Oh how we laughed.
What did you think the result of ignoring that was gonna be?
For me it was fairly predictable. He treated it both as a threat and a precedent. That said, Im not in denial about America being an empire.
I'm from a small country by the Russian northern border, so I don't have anything to do with Guam but of course do have pretty strong opinions about who should be able to dictate our future.
That was due to those competing spheres of influence.
When you join a criminal gang for protection youve gotta prove your loyalty to the top dog and respect his power.
The dynamics arent all that different to when a 15 year old kid joins a gang in south central - sometimes after demonstrating loyalty he gets protection and sometimes he gets chewed up and spat out as cannon fodder in a wider turf war.
> When you join a criminal gang for protection
I think we agree that in this context you choose to join a gang, and the opposing gang doesn't get to prevent you from leaving them. Nobody has promised NATO membership to Ukraine. However, they are free to align with Western values and apply for any membership they wish, be it EU or NATO. And when they join, yes that membership comes with certain obligations too.
I would agree but I would also argue that unless you also wholeheartedly support Crimea and the Donbass's right to choose their alignment (something Kiev and the west both publicly reject), you are probably somewhat halfhearted in your belief in people's right to self determination.
This is the litmus test of whether you are just flashing a geopolitical gang sign or demonstrating an actual commitment to democracy. Most Westerners will do the former, and are, for example, enthusiastic supporters of a (NATO) troop presence acting as an enabler for Kosovo's referendum.... while simultaneously supporting Kiev's position of "Crimeans dont get to choose".
I will however say this much: what makes the situation of any Russian neighbour difficult is the Russian history of forced relocations and genocide, Russian imperialism and irredentism, and their lack of any resemblance of fair elections and referendums. Russian modus operandi is forced russification. So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will? I definitely understand if there are opinions to both directions on that topic.
If it happened in the 19th century I think so. At some point you have to simply accept that the democraphics changed and the sins of the ancestors arent the sins of the descendants and the descendants are just as deserving of democracy as anyone else.
A group of Serbs rather famously didnt subscribe to this view and committed genocide on Bosnians in the 90s to avenge what the ottomans "did to them" in, like, the 1700s.
To be consistent with the notion that historical lands belong to historical residents you'd have to cancel democracy and give back the United States to the native americans (or mexicans, even).
Do you believe in just handing back the United States to the people whom they genocided when they took it over and letting them rule? I suspect not. I dont. Most people dont.
The awkwardness of this double standard on closer inspection underscores the fact that what you espouse here is less of a moral principle and more of a geopolitical gang sign, even though you might not realize it.
Guam is a US territory - not a foreign base.
It's ex-eastern bloc countries willingly joining the alliance to be protected from Russian aggression. If Russia did not have a long history of invading their neighbors, there would be no need or will to join the alliance.
Those countries should have been vetoed out of NATO after considering the look of the situation to Russia. There should be no countries aligned with the US military within a very wide margin of Russia, and the alliance should have stopped expanding north-east when the USSR fell. Militaries deal in present realities, not how voluntarily people signed up for military alliances. Russia should not have to wonder how trustworthy the US is being (spoiler: the US is not trustworthy although they are a lot less capricious than the average nation). It is easy to see why they might have felt pressured to invade after the Ukrainian revolution, without needing to resort to "well Putin must just be that evil & crazy!".
>There should be no countries aligned with the US military within a very wide margin of Russia
Why, just because Russia wants that, so that it's free to invade it's neighbors? People in Eastern Europe do want to be part of NATO for a simple reason - not to have to worry about their big neighbor deciding that it's time for a "liberation". This is not about aggression, this is about not being invaded.
Not a great analogy. Ukraine had not joined NATO, and there seemed to be no prospect of it.
The countries that actually did join NATO appear to be safe from Russian invasion. If the Baltic states hadn't been allowed to join NATO then Russia might already have a land bridge to Kaliningrad and we'd have lost some more liberal democracies.
I wouldn't mind if it was a military alliance of Russia neighbors and it disavowed the use of nuclear weapons. Then it would truly make the world safer, IMHO.
Ukraine was neutral before 2014, somehow it didn't help. It didn't get invaded because they were about to join NATO, but because they started to orient themselves to the EU.
What you actually argue for, and what Putin is after, is to let Russia re-build its satellite system of countries dependent on Russia.
This is a classic escalation spiral, where flirtations between Ukraine and NATO triggered Russian aggression which in turn intensified the collaboration of NATO and Ukraine. And so on and so forth.
It’s about several things, agreed.
Bit late in the day, isn't it? The EU leaders were trying to talk to Putin till their eyes glassed over and Biden was willing to talk to Russia about legit security concerns.
Yet, what did that get us? Military escalation. Looking back, maybe the West should have put a couple of tank divisions around Kyiv and Charkiv and tell Putin to better not mess with them.
Jeffrey Sachs claimed on Democracy Now that USA refused the diplomatic talks with Russia in November 2021. France, Germany and NATO tried, but apparently Putin felt that US is a key player. Whether true or not, it was wrong for the US to act as if it's just Ukraine's (and Europe's) problem, because it isn't - US has been providing Ukraine with some military support.
> Western Europe just learned a painful lesson that you can't trust Russia.
Do you recall what happened to people who trusted the British? A lot of them died. And they were almost the nice Europeans. Trusting the Americans is foolish, trusting the Chinese is insane. The Indians will turn out to be perfidious in time.
Everyone is untrustworthy. There should be more serious grappling with why the Russians did this (and Crimea in 2014) than "Putin bad". The last time a president started trying to calm the situation down he was hounded for it - the whole strategy here is mad and stupid. If the West can deal on good terms with China and the Middle East then we can be friends with Russia too.
We need serious attempts and ongoing discussion about how to stop military escalation.