Has it ? What's the data point, beyond Hitler ? Because History has shown repeatedly and consistently that escalation is reckless and extremely costly.

Native Americans appeased the US till there was nothing left. You don't tend to see many appeasers around because there is nothing left of them.

Native Americans didn't have the means to offer any substantial resistance past the initial stages of colonisation in North America. The point is moot. That's not even getting into the fact that "Native Americans" only exist in the eye of the colonizer. It's not a people, a collective body with agency.

Yep and the ones that did appease are still around. The others not so much.

This parable works multiple ways.

I agree, and even Hitler is dubious. I am Czech, and the Munich Agreement is very emotionally painful for us. However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. (Nor would fighting against Russian invasion in 1968, btw.)

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.

That's also ignoring few earlier opportunities to strike against Hitler.

>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.

> However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives.

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.

>What's the data point, beyond Hitler ?

Ukraine 2014. The West should have stopped Russia back then and there.

In the time since 2014, Ukraine got stronger while Russia got weaker. Had Russia pressed forward with their invasion in 2014, they might have succeeded in taking the whole country before NATO-aligned countries worked up the willpower to do anything about it. But because Russia stalled then, the cancer of corruption and hardware decay ate away at their power, while Ukraine began preparing for the inevitable.

How do you show that such action would lead to fewer deaths and less suffering?

Slaves minimize their deaths by not revolting. However, powerful support of their freedom by Union states led to far better world than the one without American Civil War.

That isn't a relevant question. The goal is to contain Russian expansionism, not to minimize deaths.

Well, our values seem to differ, then. I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. I think saving the lives should always trump the national pride.

So just so we're clear.

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?

I am holding both to same standard. Russian invasion is of course terrible, and it in fact undermined Russia's own goal of keeping Ukraine neutral, at the very least.

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.

Europe could do even more to promote peace by declaring putin to be the emperor of Europe, and granting him dictatorial power over the continent

What about Ukraine? Should they refrain from defending themselves? Lest it cause blood shed?

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.

I think Ukrainians have the right to do it, and it's not my call to make, it's up to them. I am torn on it, emotionally I understand it, but I think rationally it's possibly a wrong choice (as I explained elsewhere in the discussion).

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.

>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?

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.

> How does that defend Palestine in any way?

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).

>Same reasons why Ukrainians fight back against Russians.

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.

>I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake.

Well, you can't have one without the other, there's clear evidence of that going back decades.

That's a different discussion, then. The point is, the onus is on whoever is doing the military intervention to prove that they will save more lives than they will destroy. This is very high bar to clear especially since the enemy is going to fight as well, and we do not know the future.

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.

Russian expansion does indeed mean dead people. It means constant suffering, political oppression (including killing opponents or forcibly relocating them), destruction of economy and the death of culture.

Do you not mind Russia transferring Ukrainian children to brainwash them? Admit it, Ukrainians face genocide.

The future will show large nuclear arsenals are the worst policy. It is not the 1930s and Russia is not Germany. The borders of the USSR have retreated over most of our lifetime, Moscow controlled all of Ukraine as recently as 1990 and gave it up more-or-less voluntarily.

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.

> If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime...

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!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

> 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.

Ah, thankyou. I was struggling to find the right word.

> 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.

Who is the "we" that should be negotiating? The US, EU, and NATO aren't parties to the conflict. Russia and Ukraine are free to negotiate at any time, and in fact have already held talks at several points during the conflict.

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.

It's also hard to negotiate when Russia said there'd be no invasion, like the day before they crossed the border.

What credibility is left?

While I disagree with your other comments, I totally agree with denuclearization. Expanding NATO (founded on nuclear deterrence paradigm) as a reaction to Russia is wrong.

As we can clearly see now, NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons.

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.

Based on Russian performance at the start of the invasion, a similar force would have overrun the Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are small and geographically isolated. They are surrounded by Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Sea. Any attempt to support and supply them would have to go through the small gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus, or over the Baltic Sea, which would be heavily contested.

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.

Wouldn't any Russian force driving around in the Baltic states be easy targets for NATO cruise missiles and air power?

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.

That's the benefit of Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

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.

There was already Norway, Denmark and Poland fairly close by (close in terms of air travel).

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.

The idea is that if Sweden and Finland are not members of NATO, their airspace would be closed to NATO air forces in a NATO–Russia conflict. Then the only way to reach Baltic airspace would be flying past Kaliningrad.

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.

The fighter jets can refuel during flight, which is a routine operation.

Tankers won't help here. The problem is that NATO fighters would effectively have to fly over Russia before they can reach the Baltic states. The area where tankers can operate safely already has plenty of NATO airbases.

If NATO doesn't need nuclear weapons, one more reason to get rid of them. The truth is number of states that endorse nuclear weapons expands as NATO expands, and I see that as a security risk.

The poster you've replied to said

>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.

> Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible.

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?

> 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.

NATO does have to at least keep parity with Russia. Russia is the number one threat in the region, and NATO was made specifically for this purpose. Without adequate weapons to ensure peace, there would be no point of the alliance.

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 do not agree with your cynicism. You just made an opposite argument - that NATO doesn't really need nuclear weapons to defend against Russia.

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 borders of the USSR have retreated over most of our lifetime, Moscow controlled all of Ukraine as recently as 1990 and gave it up more-or-less voluntarily.

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.