The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.Oldbear83 said:whiterock said:You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.Oldbear83 said:I won't abandon Sanity.Doc Holliday said:At any cost?Oldbear83 said:Well, I recall the Russians saying they would talk if those talks included an initial no-condition promise for Ukraine to not join NATO. I also recall that Russia never even implied they would retreat from the territory they seized, much less pay damages for the civilians killed and property destroyed.Doc Holliday said:Remember in April when there was a peace deal on the table for Russia to withdraw if Ukraine agreed not to join NATO but the West said f*** you and now Ukraine has 6 cities destroyed, 4 regions illegally annexed, 8006 civilians dead including 487 children & $108B in new war debt?
— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) February 27, 2023
The Russians basically made demands and no promises.
**** them.
What's your red line?
I won't lie to sell my position.
I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.
Some here have done so, it appears.
Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?
Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time....how many years/decades will it take. All scenarios for a policy are quite destabilizing for the Eurasian shatterzone, Europe itself, and the USA national security, to include a radically higher risk of nuclear war than we face now. It is a gift, however macabre such might be, that we are able to fight Russia on their borders rather than ours with someone else's children. Russia must lose this war, for a very long list of reasons practical and moral, not the least of which is that the Ukranians are willing to fight it, which is hardly surprising as they have the most to gain from it. Anything less than full ejection of Russian troops from internationally recognized Ukranian borders is an unacceptable outcome which leaves open the prospect of tolerance for future Russian. We have a stable, capable, and best of all elected government willing to do the dirty work for us, a scenario our policy has rarely enjoyed in the last several decades. To abandon the position we have now for any other is stupefyingly short-sighted.
I have been complimentary of Biden's policy on the war, with reservations the conduct of it -- our support is too slow to be fully effective. He's dribbling it out unnecessarily slowly for the purpose of avoiding provocative escalation. And now, he's starting to lose support for the war at home. He may not have the time his policy needs.
Good news is, I sense the Ukrainian policy of strategic defense (trading Ukranian dirt for Russian bodies) is indeed exhausting Russian resources, as the looming draft of college students illustrates. Russia is fully committed to the war, but cannot break the Ukrainian lines. IF Ukraine is able to pierce the Russian front, a drive to the Sea of Azov would likely be unstoppable. That would put Crimea under extreme logistical stress and make the current Kherson front untenable. I sense that is what we will see happen. And with Russia fully returned to 2021 lines in Crimea and almost to the same status in Donetsk, calls for peace will escalate. Most observers would see such as a de facto a draw for Russia.
Remember to separate what SHOULD happen from what WILL happen, and gauge it against Liddell-Hart's dictum about victory. If Russia gains an inch from the war, the war will have been worth it for Russia. We cannot let them have that inch, and ideally will push them back to less than the 2014 borders. If we don't do that, we incentivize them to repeat the behavior.
