Russia invades Ukraine *** READ RULES IN POST 6 BEFORE POSTING ***

BleedSilverandBlue

Curator of Excellent Takes
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
5,396
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
I agree with most of what you posted, just have to point out that the 31 Abrams tanks that we are providing, while being built brand new (that were originally slated for Taiwan or Poland), are of the older armor variant. That's the reason they are being built from scratch because what we have in our arsenal is too advanced (depleted uranium composite) to allow Russia to get their hands on (although their T14s reportedly have more advanced armor).

Abrams article link

I know that the UK has vowed to provide fighter jet training, but I haven't seen anything about Western jets to Ukraine yet. I have some opinions on that if it happens, but I'll leave it alone.
I think the salient point about the Abrams transfer is that the tanks will not be arriving for 2 years minimum. The US obviously knows these tanks will not be part of winning the current fight, but could be part of a larger effort to turn Ukraine into a very unattractive path for any future Russian adventures west after this war is over.

As far as fighter jets go, word on the street is that the UK and US have determined the F-16 is a poor choice for Ukraine due to the high costs of maintenance and their reliance on pristine Western airfields for take off. The alternative being talked about behind closed doors is the transfer of a large number of Eurofighter Typhoons from Western Europe that will then potentially be backfilled by F-16s. Make no mistake, the allies know that the transfer of these high profile weapons systems (and the training required to operate/ maintain them) are very long term plays and I believe it lends credence to my hypothesis that the west wants to build the Ukrainian military into a juggernaut that can serve as a buffer between NATO and Russia.

All of this is informed speculation on my part though so take it with a grain of salt.

The same can be said about Russia's intention to take over the entirety of Ukraine and beyond. "They're not going to stop" has been the rallying cry from the Western Politicians to garner support. The 'ole trope of "if we don't fight them in their lands, we'll have to fight them at home".

Whoever "wins" in Ukraine is going to have a hot mess on their hands to rebuild. IMO, the real loser in the end will be the Ukrainians. They're either going to be subjugated to Russian rule or indebted beyond belief to the West and who knows how much more of their land is going to get "acquired" by private foreign entities.
I think the key difference is that Russia has shown a willingness to endlessly attempt to grab former soviet territory which could put NATO partners like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland in danger. The ongoing deluge of Russian rhetoric surrounding future expansion is also not helping. Add this along with the fact that they may actually be in the early phases of a potential Moldovan destabilization op and it becomes more concerning due to its potential to spill over into Romania. NATO has never launched a large ground offensive in Europe and generally is not eyeing Russian territory as a target for future expansion. The Russians also made it very clear at the onset of this conflict that their goal was to subjugate the entirety of Ukraine (even if formal annexation would have only occurred in the east).

I also believe that nations run by a strongman and his immediate circle are much more unpredictable and tend to be more prone to erratic decision making when compared to a large coalition of democratic nations. I believe that both sides are guilty of wrong doing (Kosovo anyone?) but I believe Russia is much more likely to trigger a crisis than NATO is based on the current geopolitical situation.

While I think that a NATO invasion of Russia or vice-versa is very unlikely to occur, I think it is almost undeniable that Russia (at least under its current regime) is significantly more likely to initiate such a conflict for the reasons I mentioned above.
 
Last edited:

teamrican1

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
30
I think the salient point about the Abrams transfer is that the tanks will not be arriving for 2 years minimum. The US obviously knows these tanks will not be part of winning the current fight, but could be part of a larger effort to turn Ukraine into a very unattractive path for any future Russian adventures west after this war is over.
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about with regards to non-Realist thinking ignoring consequences and not thinking things through. If your plan is to flood Ukraine with advanced weapons in the coming years then you are forcing Russia in to prosecuting the war until the Ukrainian state is dismantled entirely in order to deny you the physical territory to carry out such a scheme. There is no scenario under which Russia is going to allow a rump independent Ukraine to exist so you can flood it with weapons to wage war against Russia. These sort of inflexible positions are literally condemning Ukraine to death.

The only way Ukraine can be saved at this point is via a negotiated settlement that includes demilitarisation and neutrality. If a sincere and workable proposal along these lines were offered you could probably still get a deal in which Kharkov and Odessa remain in Ukraine and Russia just keeps Crimea and the four oblasts they've already incorporated in to the Russian Federation. But without the demilitarisation and neutrality aspect you are never going to get a deal.

Time is of the essence here. Ground is nearly frozen in Eastern Ukraine and that means a full Russian offensive could begin any day now. At some point, "in for a penny, in for a pound" calculations are going to kick in for Russia and they are just going to stop entertaining offers until they meet certain goals (like land bridge to Transnistria which has unfortunate side effect of removing Ukrainian access to Black Sea).
 

BleedSilverandBlue

Curator of Excellent Takes
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
5,396
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about with regards to non-Realist thinking ignoring consequences and not thinking things through. If your plan is to flood Ukraine with advanced weapons in the coming years then you are forcing Russia in to prosecuting the war until the Ukrainian state is dismantled entirely in order to deny you the physical territory to carry out such a scheme. There is no scenario under which Russia is going to allow a rump independent Ukraine to exist so you can flood it with weapons to wage war against Russia. These sort of inflexible positions are literally condemning Ukraine to death.

The only way Ukraine can be saved at this point is via a negotiated settlement that includes demilitarisation and neutrality. If a sincere and workable proposal along these lines were offered you could probably still get a deal in which Kharkov and Odessa remain in Ukraine and Russia just keeps Crimea and the four oblasts they've already incorporated in to the Russian Federation. But without the demilitarisation and neutrality aspect you are never going to get a deal.

Time is of the essence here. Ground is nearly frozen in Eastern Ukraine and that means a full Russian offensive could begin any day now. At some point, "in for a penny, in for a pound" calculations are going to kick in for Russia and they are just going to stop entertaining offers until they meet certain goals (like land bridge to Transnistria which has unfortunate side effect of removing Ukrainian access to Black Sea).
I agree that Ukraine should always remain a Non-NATO, neutral state but to leave them disarmed would be seal their fate as a Russian vassal. Russia has been rather open about how they view Ukraine's future existence as a sovereign nation. How much more does the world have to bend to Russia's vision for the future for them to be satisfied? They were allowed Luhank, Donetsk, and Crimea in 2014 and it should have ended there, but that is not how territory hungry authoritarian states work. None of Ukraine's leadership or in the West has spoken about a grand Ukrainian conquest of Russian territory. The goal of Ukraine is to exist as a free nation and the only way they can do that is by halting the Russian advance and being a formidable enough opponent for Russia to think twice about their next western conquest. The Ukraine that existed before the war, a dysfunctional, corrupt, weak neighbor, was exactly what the Russians should have wanted. It was literally a nearly perfect scenario for them before Putin's delusions of grandeur kicked in. They brought this upon themselves on Feb 24, 2022 and created a far stronger enemy.

The Russian military is being bled dry in Ukraine and I actually think the realist perspective (although it may be inhumane) would dictate that you should grind the Russian military down to a version that is incapable of persecuting a major conflict for years. As cynical as it may sound, it is 100% in Nato's best interest to diminish Russia's capabilities as much as possible at the cost of no NATO lives. This conflict can be fought today or tomorrow, but it was inevitable since the events of 2014. As it stands now and as much as Russia wants to make it seem, there is no threat of nuclear war and Russia is incapable of "escalation". I would much rather this scenario unfold here and now than 10 years from now in Baltic states or the Suwalki gap where nuclear escalation would be on the table.

I don't know if you keep up on the tactical maps, but the offensive has already begun. Russia is attempting to storm Ukrainian positions across the entire eastern front with the main vector of attack happening on the Kremina line. Russia's plan appear to be to fight meter by meter in a doomed attempt to capture as much of Luhansk and Donetsk as they can while absorbing 1000+ KIA and 3000+ WIA on a daily basis. There is no overwhelming mechanized thrust coming. They will make meager gains over the next month or two at a massive cost. Russia no longer has the capability to take the entirety of Ukraine or execute an offensive capable of capturing large swaths of land that are being fiercely defended (I don't think they ever did in the first place). They simply do not have the ability to create a land bridge to Transnistria even if that was their current aim. The Russian army, as large as it is, is a paper tiger. It could not even defeat its poverty stricken, corrupt, tiny neighbor. A modern western force would devastate them in weeks.

All of this being said, I 100% think that Ukraine needs to pursue peace talks now, but because of a different premise. Not because Russia is going to capture huge portions of Ukraine otherwise, but rather because Ukraine would be negotiating from a position of relative strength. Russia knows they are incapable of achieving their initial goals (beheading the government and transforming Ukraine into a Russian vassal) and are likely not even capable of their new, more limited goals (capturing all of Luhansk and Donetsk) in a reasonable time frame or without taking another couple hundred thousand KIA. I imagine that any deal struck now would be more favorable to Ukraine than one a year from now.

Give Russia what they've captured of Luhansk and Donetsk; The land is razed to the ground and the population has mostly either been killed or has fled. Let them keep Crimea, for its people want to be Russian anyways, but to pretend that the Russian military is capable of capturing Odessa, Kharkiv, and destroying the Ukrainian state is ignoring the reality on the ground.
 
Last edited:

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
3,457
By that logic, you would have to support returning Texas to Mexico. The Dallas Cowboys would become the NFL's first foreign based football team.

Foreign policy can't be based on emotions or ideology. It needs to be reality based. During the Cold War, US policy was heavily influenced by realists such as George Kennan. But for the past 30 years Realists have been systematically purged from the foreign policy establishment. How has that worked out for us? You say Russia should not be allowed to "expand" in to Ukraine but taking such a hardline, inflexible position has resulted in Russia annexing two Ukrainian oblasts that Russia merely wanted some form of autonomy for prior to the war and another two oblasts that weren't even part of the discussion prior to the war starting! And the longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia is going to take and the more people that are going to needlessly die.

Actions have reactions. Realist Foreign Policy understands this. The inflexible position of the non-Realists who have been running the show thus far has forced Russia in to a far more aggressive and expansionist policy than they would have pursued otherwise. If negotiation and diplomacy are taken off the table (as you want) then Ukraine can not exist at all from the Russian perspective. The end logic of the non-Realist position is that Russia will be forced in to a waging a multi-year war all the way to the Polish border.
For realist put sell out

No morality; no integrity; nothing but make a deal.

Congratulations to all those who would sell their mothers if the price is right

I laugh when I read drivel like this; anyone stupid enough to bring up Texas and so on is so desperate to deflect its pitiful

There is nothing in your posts but bowing down to aggression.
 

triplets_93

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,276
Reaction score
5,926
Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Poland has been living with the consequences: 8 million Ukrainians have crossed the border into Polish territory since last February and the majority of NATO assistance is delivered through Poland, which shares a 535-kilometre-long border with Ukraine. With the prospect of a new Russian spring offensive in Ukraine on everyone’s mind, Poland is acting as if it is preparing for a war.

If Poland’s support for Ukraine has been seemingly limitless, it comes from a deeply rooted belief that if Russia is not defeated, Poland itself will become a target. Security concerns have led Poland to modernize its army and boost its defence spending to up to 4 percent of its GDP this year, the highest percentage among all NATO countries, according to Prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki.


https://www.france24.com/en/europe/...y-concerns-drive-poland-s-support-for-ukraine
 

nobody

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
18,662
I agree with most of what you posted, just have to point out that the 31 Abrams tanks that we are providing, while being built brand new (that were originally slated for Taiwan or Poland), are of the older armor variant. That's the reason they are being built from scratch because what we have in our arsenal is too advanced (depleted uranium composite) to allow Russia to get their hands on (although their T14s reportedly have more advanced armor).

Abrams article link

I know that the UK has vowed to provide fighter jet training, but I haven't seen anything about Western jets to Ukraine yet. I have some opinions on that if it happens, but I'll leave it alone.



The same can be said about Russia's intention to take over the entirety of Ukraine and beyond. "They're not going to stop" has been the rallying cry from the Western Politicians to garner support. The 'ole trope of "if we don't fight them in their lands, we'll have to fight them at home".

Whoever "wins" in Ukraine is going to have a hot mess on their hands to rebuild. IMO, the real loser in the end will be the Ukrainians. They're either going to be subjugated to Russian rule or indebted beyond belief to the West and who knows how much more of their land is going to get "acquired" by private foreign entities.
Their actions proved they weren't going to stop. 2014 should have ended it....now they invade again and rather than just take the land they intended to "liberate" they went straight for Ukraine's capitol and now lob missiles and drones at Ukraine's power infrastructure and civilian targets. That's not the actions of a country with a set goal of liberating a small area.

Regardless, the people are Ukraine will have a rough time of things for a long time to come no matter the outcome.
 

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
3,457
Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Poland has been living with the consequences: 8 million Ukrainians have crossed the border into Polish territory since last February and the majority of NATO assistance is delivered through Poland, which shares a 535-kilometre-long border with Ukraine. With the prospect of a new Russian spring offensive in Ukraine on everyone’s mind, Poland is acting as if it is preparing for a war.

If Poland’s support for Ukraine has been seemingly limitless, it comes from a deeply rooted belief that if Russia is not defeated, Poland itself will become a target. Security concerns have led Poland to modernize its army and boost its defence spending to up to 4 percent of its GDP this year, the highest percentage among all NATO countries, according to Prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki.


https://www.france24.com/en/europe/...y-concerns-drive-poland-s-support-for-ukraine
Poland is having to deal with a lot because of Russian aggression. Those trying to blame everyone else for this really need to stop.

After WW2 and being forced into the Soviet Warsaw Pact, I think its safe to say that Poland is NEVER going to buy off on anything that rewards Russia for this aggression.
 

teamrican1

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
30
For realist put sell out

No morality; no integrity; nothing but make a deal.

Congratulations to all those who would sell their mothers if the price is right

I laugh when I read drivel like this; anyone stupid enough to bring up Texas and so on is so desperate to deflect its pitiful

There is nothing in your posts but bowing down to aggression.

The Realist approach would have resulted in:
1. Formal recognition of Crimea as part of Russia by Ukraine
2. Some sort of partial autonomy for the Donbass within Ukraine
3. Ukraine granting the same sort of language and culture rights for national minorities similar to what exists in Russian Federation.
4. Treaty guaranteeing no NATO
5. NOBODY DEAD.

The non-Realist approach has so far resulted in:
1. 120k to 150k Dead Ukrainians.
2. Russia annexing Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia outright.
3. The complete destruction of the Ukrainian economy and damages to infrastructure to the tune of hundreds of billions and counting.
4. A war with no end in sight that only promises to deliver more dead, more territory annexed, and more destruction of critical infrastructure.

So what is the end game here? You talk about mothers but the non-realist approach has literally created millions of either mothers, daughters, or sisters who have lost a husband, father, or brother. And for what? To secure Ukraine a far worse deal than the one they could have had prior to the war starting?

Great statesmanship is often about choosing the least bad option. There is nothing righteous or moral in a Statesman eschewing the least bad option when circumstances and reality dictate that is the path which needs to be taken.
 

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
3,457
The Realist approach would have resulted in:
1. Formal recognition of Crimea as part of Russia by Ukraine
2. Some sort of partial autonomy for the Donbass within Ukraine
3. Ukraine granting the same sort of language and culture rights for national minorities similar to what exists in Russian Federation.
4. Treaty guaranteeing no NATO
5. NOBODY DEAD.

The non-Realist approach has so far resulted in:
1. 120k to 150k Dead Ukrainians.
2. Russia annexing Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia outright.
3. The complete destruction of the Ukrainian economy and damages to infrastructure to the tune of hundreds of billions and counting.
4. A war with no end in sight that only promises to deliver more dead, more territory annexed, and more destruction of critical infrastructure.

So what is the end game here? You talk about mothers but the non-realist approach has literally created millions of either mothers, daughters, or sisters who have lost a husband, father, or brother. And for what? To secure Ukraine a far worse deal than the one they could have had prior to the war starting?

Great statesmanship is often about choosing the least bad option. There is nothing righteous or moral in a Statesman eschewing the least bad option when circumstances and reality dictate that is the path which needs to be taken.
Clearly you graduated from the Neville Chamberlain Institute of Foreign Relations with honors.

All you need to do is wave a piece of paper while getting off a plane and you would be his double.
 

RJ_MacReady

It's all in the reflexes
Messages
3,959
Reaction score
7,111
Yep, as usual the graduates of the Neville Chamberlin school of International Relations are easy to find
I see we have another graduate of the Neville Chamberlain School of International Relations.
Clearly you graduated from the Neville Chamberlain Institute of Foreign Relations with honors.

Well, at least you've moved on from labeling people that have opposing views as "[Russian President supporters]". I have to give you that.
 
Last edited:

nobody

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
18,662
The Realist approach would have resulted in:
1. Formal recognition of Crimea as part of Russia by Ukraine
2. Some sort of partial autonomy for the Donbass within Ukraine
3. Ukraine granting the same sort of language and culture rights for national minorities similar to what exists in Russian Federation.
4. Treaty guaranteeing no NATO
5. NOBODY DEAD.

The non-Realist approach has so far resulted in:
1. 120k to 150k Dead Ukrainians.
2. Russia annexing Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia outright.
3. The complete destruction of the Ukrainian economy and damages to infrastructure to the tune of hundreds of billions and counting.
4. A war with no end in sight that only promises to deliver more dead, more territory annexed, and more destruction of critical infrastructure.

So what is the end game here? You talk about mothers but the non-realist approach has literally created millions of either mothers, daughters, or sisters who have lost a husband, father, or brother. And for what? To secure Ukraine a far worse deal than the one they could have had prior to the war starting?

Great statesmanship is often about choosing the least bad option. There is nothing righteous or moral in a Statesman eschewing the least bad option when circumstances and reality dictate that is the path which needs to be taken.
That would be well and good IF Russia could be trusted to abide by and uphold agreements/treaties.

In 1994, Russia agreed to never invade/attack Ukraine if Ukraine gave up its nukes. Ukraine gave up its nukes. In 2014, Russia attacked Ukraine to aid Russian separatists...So they broke their agreement to never attack Ukraine by participating in what amounted to a civil war or insurrection.
In 2014-2015, Russia agreed to the Minsk agreements as part of the negotiated solution to end the Donbas war.
In 2022, Russia again broke it's word and invaded. It used false pretenses as an excuse and it's narrative over the course of the past year changed.


Rather than seize the section of Ukraine it was claiming to "save and liberate" and reinforce it and stopping, they tried a blitzkrieg invasion and went for the capital. Rather than stick to military targets, Russia violated international law (that it agreed to) by targeting civilian infrastructures and targets.

So your REALISTIC approach works, for countries that adhere to their word. Russia clearly does not. It has even been accused of violating the nuclear arms control START Treaty.

Yes, Ukraine is likely screwed long-term, but let's not pretend Russia is some honorable nation with a set goal of liberating the Donbass and getting Crimea as a recognized part of Russia. Russia gets what it wants, waits, then violates what it agrees to. It will continue to due so as long as nations stand by and let them do it while wringing their hands and trying to appease Russia by saying "Okay, if you stop, you can have this."

Appeasement does not work. How is that not clear to you? Have you even studied history since WWI?
 

teamrican1

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
30
That would be well and good IF Russia could be trusted to abide by and uphold agreements/treaties.

In 1994, Russia agreed to never invade/attack Ukraine if Ukraine gave up its nukes. Ukraine gave up its nukes. In 2014, Russia attacked Ukraine to aid Russian separatists...So they broke their agreement to never attack Ukraine by participating in what amounted to a civil war or insurrection.
In 2014-2015, Russia agreed to the Minsk agreements as part of the negotiated solution to end the Donbas war.
In 2022, Russia again broke it's word and invaded. It used false pretenses as an excuse and it's narrative over the course of the past year changed.


Rather than seize the section of Ukraine it was claiming to "save and liberate" and reinforce it and stopping, they tried a blitzkrieg invasion and went for the capital. Rather than stick to military targets, Russia violated international law (that it agreed to) by targeting civilian infrastructures and targets.

So your REALISTIC approach works, for countries that adhere to their word. Russia clearly does not. It has even been accused of violating the nuclear arms control START Treaty.

Yes, Ukraine is likely screwed long-term, but let's not pretend Russia is some honorable nation with a set goal of liberating the Donbass and getting Crimea as a recognized part of Russia. Russia gets what it wants, waits, then violates what it agrees to. It will continue to due so as long as nations stand by and let them do it while wringing their hands and trying to appease Russia by saying "Okay, if you stop, you can have this."

Appeasement does not work. How is that not clear to you? Have you even studied history since WWI?
The memorandum called for no political meddling by either side. From the Russian perspective, the memorandum was violated by the West the day the a Western backed mob overthrew the elected President. I'd also note that the official position of the United State Government is that the memorandum is not even binding anyway. US took this position to impose sanctions back in 2020 (forbidden by the Budapest Memo) against Belarus meant to effect regime change and bring down Lukashenko's government.

And yeah, Russia agreed to Minsk and then the non-realists in charge of US Foreign Policy told Ukraine not to implement it. Russia waited 8 long years for Ukraine to comply. They didn't, and the bombs kept dropping on women and children in the Donbass, so Russia finally decided upon a military solution.

And yes, I have studied history since WWI. But I've studied history before WWI as well. That seems to be a critical difference the two of us. Your entire understanding of recorded history seems to be limited to one particular incident- and you don't even seem to have a very solid grasp on what happened there (Hitler actually wanted a pretext to invade Czechoslovakia and was furious that Chamberlain outmaneuvered him and delayed his plans). History does not begin and end with one conference from 1938. Even if we adopt the ridiculous proposition that the years of 1938-1945 are the only ones we can draw upon to help us make informed decisions, what about Finland? Finland was invaded by the Soviets in the Winter War in 1939 and signed a truce giving up a large swarth of territory in exchange for peace. They then went to war to try and get it back during the Continuation War after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. When Germany's war efforts turned south, Finland broke their alliance with Germany and made terms with the Soviets and gave up more territory and agreed to neutrality during the Cold War. Finland's leader during this period, Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, is viewed by Finns as the greatest Finn of all time. He lost two wars and a large and important swath of Finnish territory. But he navigated the country thru an almost impossible situation with prudence and good judgement and managed to ensure an independent Finnish state survived.

Some conference 80 years ago in a totally different time and a totally different set of circumstances is not an argument for the Ukraine to adopt a position which virtually ensures that Russia will prosecute this war until they reach the Polish border and eradicate Ukrainian statehood. Foreign policy decisions must be predicated on the specific set of circumstances a country faces in the present. Ukraine should have made a deal a long time ago.
 

triplets_93

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,276
Reaction score
5,926
Rishi Sunak pushes for Ukraine charter and long-range missiles for Kyiv

The UK Prime Minister said he hoped the coming Nato summit in Vilnius would build long-term assurances. "Our aim should be to forge a new charter in Vilnius to help protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression," he said.

Mr Sunak said Ukraine's forces had reached an inflection point in the battle against Russian troops and called on fellow leaders at the summit to “double down” on military support for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/wor...-nato-standard-capabilities-rishi-sunak-says/
 

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
3,457
The memorandum called for no political meddling by either side. From the Russian perspective, the memorandum was violated by the West the day the a Western backed mob overthrew the elected President. I'd also note that the official position of the United State Government is that the memorandum is not even binding anyway. US took this position to impose sanctions back in 2020 (forbidden by the Budapest Memo) against Belarus meant to effect regime change and bring down Lukashenko's government.

And yeah, Russia agreed to Minsk and then the non-realists in charge of US Foreign Policy told Ukraine not to implement it. Russia waited 8 long years for Ukraine to comply. They didn't, and the bombs kept dropping on women and children in the Donbass, so Russia finally decided upon a military solution.

And yes, I have studied history since WWI. But I've studied history before WWI as well. That seems to be a critical difference the two of us. Your entire understanding of recorded history seems to be limited to one particular incident- and you don't even seem to have a very solid grasp on what happened there (Hitler actually wanted a pretext to invade Czechoslovakia and was furious that Chamberlain outmaneuvered him and delayed his plans). History does not begin and end with one conference from 1938. Even if we adopt the ridiculous proposition that the years of 1938-1945 are the only ones we can draw upon to help us make informed decisions, what about Finland? Finland was invaded by the Soviets in the Winter War in 1939 and signed a truce giving up a large swarth of territory in exchange for peace. They then went to war to try and get it back during the Continuation War after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. When Germany's war efforts turned south, Finland broke their alliance with Germany and made terms with the Soviets and gave up more territory and agreed to neutrality during the Cold War. Finland's leader during this period, Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, is viewed by Finns as the greatest Finn of all time. He lost two wars and a large and important swath of Finnish territory. But he navigated the country thru an almost impossible situation with prudence and good judgement and managed to ensure an independent Finnish state survived.

Some conference 80 years ago in a totally different time and a totally different set of circumstances is not an argument for the Ukraine to adopt a position which virtually ensures that Russia will prosecute this war until they reach the Polish border and eradicate Ukrainian statehood. Foreign policy decisions must be predicated on the specific set of circumstances a country faces in the present. Ukraine should have made a deal a long time ago.
Yawn. More excuses for Russia; it never ends.

Ukraine will keep fighting and Russians will keep dying and the Putin appeasers will whine and cry.
 
Top