Sure, there's no WWIII if we just give all the imperialistic madmen what they want. What could go wrong? ... Ok, no, I won't be sarcastic. That's quite possibly the only worse outcome than WW3.

> no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII.

Bear in mind this is only true because of the relentless resistance of the Ukrainians, backed up by the material and economic support of the west (granted, a lot of the Russian military was still in rough shape, but they would have been in a much better position to discover and fix that on their time if Ukraine had fallen quickly). If not for both of those factors together, Russia would be smacking its lips after Ukraine and looking for its next meal. We've already had to call a lot of nuclear bluffing to get here to this point where we're neither appeasing Putin or launching nukes at him.

Yes, but you're arguing that up is actually down where Putin is going to launch nukes if he got what he wants which is the exact opposite of what is likely to happen.

This isn't WWII and Putin isn't literally Hitler and you sound like you read something once about WWII in a history textbook and you're desperate to a construct a parallel with appeasement that doesn't exist.

Appeasement is still bad, but it has nothing to do with causing Putin to launch nukes. The nuclear threat is still due to him having his back against the wall and while I don't think we should back down over that, you're trying to construct an alternative reality where its the opposite actions which could result in a nuclear exchange. That is a dangerous denial of reality which doesn't help in clearly thinking about the situation at all.

Your posturing to be more anti-Putin than anyone else may make you feel better about yourself and let you get angry at everyone else that isn't as edgy as you are, but being grounded in actual REALITY is the only way to get out of this crisis without a nuclear exchange (which more or less ties in with the topic of the OP since failure to clearly understand the motives of the other party in the conflict in the cold war nearly led to nuclear annihilation). You aren't helping.

It's definitely the first time since WWII that a democracy of 45 million people has been invaded... In fact, Ukraine in February was larger and more populous than any of the democracies that Hitler invaded.

> actual REALITY is the only way to get out of this crisis without a nuclear exchange

Ah yes "realpolitik". Which is straight up Russian propaganda to prevent us from reacting because "nuclear weapons". You aren't helping.

I want to see Russia driven out of Ukraine, for Putin to be removed out a window and for the Make Russia Great Again culture to collapse with the death of the strongman/myth. I'm just not blinding myself to the risks that are involved, I'm definitely not trying to convince myself that up is down.

> you're arguing that up is actually down where Putin is going to launch nukes if he got what he wants which is the exact opposite of what is likely to happen.

Ah, no actually? None of that. Obviously he won't launch nukes after he gets what he wants. He probably won't even launch them if he doesn't, though that counts on him keeping a shred of rationality.

My only point here (distinct from those of others on the chain, please note) is that preserving liberty globally depends on not being cowed by someone threatening to use nuclear weapons. Even if they never actually launch, it would be a catastrophe if aggressors could get away with anything just by threatening to use nukes. Without exaggeration, you're potentially talking about the death of liberty worldwide. The only reason this is unlikely is that free nations tend to wake up before they get completely boiled frog-style; this is, in fact, my read on why everyone is suddenly supporting Ukraine and cutting off Russia after doing jack shit in 2014, they've lost all deniability on the threat Russia poses.

"The only way WWIII happens is if we appease Russia."

There's no WWIII if we appease Russia. There's a lot of other bad things though, including allowing Russia to get another win and to put up with their influence in our politics and society and watching as we slide further into Fascism. But that isn't a nuclear exchange.

We are risking WWIII by confronting Russia because of all those other things.

The situation is precarious enough that Biden has threatened retaliatory decapitation strikes to kill Putin in the event of the use of Russian tactical nuclear missiles. And that sounds like a rational and proportionate response that might avoid nuclear war (but opens a massive can of worms since retaliatory assassinations become likely).

You can't "flip the script" and argue that its the other side of the debate that leads to nuclear annihilation. You don't get off that easy, you have to deal with the fact that its worth it to risk it.

(Although with the way our politics is going it may be ultimately immaterial anyway in the long run).

I'm asking you again to check the usernames you're quoting and the ones you're replying to. Then read what I actually wrote and see if it makes more sense.

> If we give them the territory they hold today they're in no shape to take anything else, and they certainly won't launch WWIII.

> I don't support appeasement in any way, but that isn't the road to WWIII.

These two statements are in conflict. You obviously _do_ support appeasement if you suggest Ukraine stops defending itself.

> I mean that is obviously overly dramatic posturing nonsense.

No it is not, not in the least. I wouldn't be so dismissive of someone when you clearly don't know the subject area (geopolitics).

There are geopolitical reasons for what Putin is doing in Ukraine. I recommend listing to "Peter Zeihan" on the subject, for starters. He's covered the war very well.

The underlying goal is to push the Russian "frontier" up to defensible geographical choke points before Russia's demographic decline makes it impossible to do so. This doesn't stop at Ukraine. The push would take all of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Moldova, a north eastern chunk of Romania, and an eastern chunk of Poland up to the Vistula. Finland would also have to continue to be neutral, or would have to be taken as well. This is why the Russians have reacted badly to the suggestion that Finland is joining NATO. The gas restriction to Germany was a Russian attempt to push the country out of the NATO alliance, which would have made any NATO response difficult once Russia started on NATO states in the Baltic.

Putin has also made it clear that what he can't achieve with conventional military force, he is willing to attempt with tactical nuclear weapons. Taken together, the clear and stated desire to annex NATO nations (see Putin's recent speech on the Baltics historically belonging to Russia, and Ukraine "not being a real country"), the willingness to use nuclear weapons, and the fact that he is very clearly acting with the above aims in mind, should have you concerned.

The fact that the Russian army has been beaten back in Ukraine should not lull us into a false sense of security. They have plenty more manpower reserves they can draw on, and the Russians have a history of starting wars in somewhat of a shambles, before reforming and producing an army that is more of a stream roller.