Another question wrt Ukraine - Russia

[Devo]

WW2 deserves its own thread.

[HDGristle]

Part of the original post is an example of what OP feels is a lesson not learned from the leadup to WW2 and perceived parallels to today.

Discussion worth hsving

[Don Stephens]

Exactly HDG. "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" (Santayana)

[Jacuzzme]

Except they’re not even remotely similar situations. Not gonna pass a Spanish exam by studying French.

[HDGristle]

Rewarding a dictator for bad behavior, signaling weakness and hoping he stops is Don's point

[Jacuzzme]

Throwing a trillion dollars down a black hole clearly isn’t the answer, and is exactly what many are gunning for.

No sense in delaying the inevitable, and everyone knows what that is, whether or not they want to admit it. Ukraine has no chance of victory without foreign troops on the ground and in the air. None. It ends with Russia keeping Donbas and Crimea, either that or all out war with nato. Take your pick.

[HDGristle]

So you give him Donbas and Crimea. You hobble Ukraine. You hobble NATO. What stops him rom pausing, restocking and blowing through to Moldova?

I see a lot of weakness from you in exchange for peace in our time. But not lasting peace.

[Devo]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

So you give him Donbas and Crimea. You hobble Ukraine. You hobble NATO. What stops him rom pausing, restocking and blowing through to Moldova?

I see a lot of weakness from you in exchange for peace in our time. But not lasting peace.

The newly formed European Army can take over and protect the Ukraine.

I have read that its an idea, let the EU command all the Euro troops in that theatre.

Unite all Euro nations as we do with our states.

And I guarantee, if you did try and form a EU Army, you'd lose the more powerful countries that actually have arms and troops, like Poland.

Germany has almost nothing, France, well, its France, you really think they'd be capable without US, the USA?

[bambino]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

So you give him Donbas and Crimea. You hobble Ukraine. You hobble NATO. What stops him rom pausing, restocking and blowing through to Moldova?

I see a lot of weakness from you in exchange for peace in our time. But not lasting peace.

NATO did just fine without Ukraine/Crimea/Donbas as members. They can’t afford to protect themselves without the US. And Mr Hristle, you’re not a fortune teller. You have no idea if Putin’s going to restock and blow thru anyone. Unless NATO continues to push east which they said they wouldn’t. But lied.

[HDGristle]

Also a signal of weakness

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by bambino

NATO did just fine without Ukraine/Crimea/Donbas as members. They can’t afford to protect themselves without the US. And Mr Hristle, you’re not a fortune teller. You have no idea if Putin’s going to restock and blow thru anyone. Unless NATO continues to push east which they said they wouldn’t.

NATO expansion is a Russian talking point. No such written agreement exists and even Gorbachev admitted to that on a few occasions. It never made it into the agreement

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

So you give him Donbas and Crimea. You hobble Ukraine. You hobble NATO. What stops him rom pausing, restocking and blowing through to Moldova?

I see a lot of weakness from you in exchange for peace in our time. But not lasting peace.

Better get used to it, because that’s what’s going to happen.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Better get used to it, because that’s what’s going to happen.

I'll mark that as you being pro appeasement

[bambino]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

NATO expansion is a Russian talking point. No such written agreement exists and even Gorbachev admitted to that on a few occasions. It never made it into the agreement

No no no Mr Gristle, it’s not a talking point but documented.


https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/167707

You’re full of talking points. Which are usually wrong

[HDGristle]

It's not in the signed agreement. It's not disputed that it was discussed. But no such promise was in the final agreement despite his claim of a violation of the spirit, but not the letter of the agreement.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/d...achev-says-no/

I'll mark you as pro appeasement as well