• killall-q
    link
    fedilink
    English
    231 year ago

    The lesson to be learned from WWII is that appeasement of land-hungry countries is not a solution for long term world peace. Because of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland and Austria, Hitler learned that the world would simply let him take whatever he wanted if he bared his teeth.

    Putin views the fall of the USSR with bitterness, and wants to bring the USSR back. From his prior incursions into Chechnya and Crimea, he had learned that he could take whatever territory he wanted and the world would turn a blind eye out of fear of starting a larger conflict. He had hoped that Trump would be reelected, reducing the likelihood of a united West against this offensive he had been planning for years.

    So, he had plans to take Moldova after Ukraine. He expected Ukraine’s inexperienced, ex-actor president to flee like Hamid Karzai when his forces made a beeline for Kyiv. Instead, Zelenskyy stood his ground, lead the defense of Ukraine, and marshalled materiel support from NATO. Ukraine is choosing to fiercely defend itself; even if pacifists who want to minimize total casualties were to get the US and NATO to cease all support for Ukraine, “allowing” it to be overrun, there would be no speedy end to the conflict. And then, even if Russia were to claim all of Ukraine, the bloodshed would not stop there, as he would continue to take former USSR member states.

    • @WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      even if pacifists who want to minimize total casualties were to get the US and NATO to cease all support for Ukraine

      Don’t call people who want to let Putin profit from his warmongering “pacifists”.

        • @veedant@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That isn’t entirely true, imho. I live by the motto “Hope for peace, but prepare for war”.

          • @Cabrio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            The you aren’t a pacifist. A pacifist considers violence and war as unjustifiable by definition.

            Pacifism is an untenable position because the only way to ensure control of the actions of another is through force and domination due to a pesky thing called free will.

            A pacifist is an idealist that has chosen not to contend with the reality that someone else may choose to be violent towards them. They have, through this unjustifiable position, determined that because pain is bad all violence has no justification, even in the defence of oneself. Pacifism is enabled by a core belief that all violence propagates violence.

            Pacifism often limits this understanding of violence to the physical, as far as I’m aware no pacifist is against violence such as forced imprisonment of criminals.

    • @hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Yeah, best to appease countries like the US who don’t officially take land, but will invade, overthrow, or fund opposition if you do not do what they say. It’s funny to be seeing the grandstanding of Americans and the world coming together to moralize about Russia. Where was all this during the 20 years of Iraq? Apparently the biggest bully on the playground gets to dictate what’s right.

      • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        No, you’re completely right. Other countries should’ve denounced the US for Iraq. But the fact that that didn’t happen doesn’t mean Russia gets a pass here too.

        • @hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          Absolutely, Russia is 100% wrong for invading Ukraine and it should be denounced and countered. I just find it interesting how strongly people feel about one invasion over another.

          • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            And then you have other conflicts and genocides around the world too. From a historic geopolitical perspective, I understand why Ukraine and Russia has way more attention, and it’s not like I think we should pay less attention to it. I just hope going forward we do this for other global conflicts.

            As a liberal, this war has shown me that the US military and defence budget can be a force for good. It’s a tool to be used by the wielder. The left can use it to help the world and maintain peace. I’d personally argue it’s our duty, both ideologically and geopolitically. The US has done a lot of unsavory things to get where we are, the West overall even moreso – it’s time we gave back and made up for it.

    • mihor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -231 year ago

      Putin is (quite contrary to western MSM-taught propaganda) a very pragmatic and laid-back leader, moreso than most if not all of the western leaders. He was never known for making rash or risky decisions. The Russo-Ukrainian war was forced by the west, Putin never wanted it to happen, but he damn sure prepared for the eventuality.

      • @kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        Pragmatic? Sure. No risky decisions? Get outta here. Only reason he was elected in the first place is because he orchestrated a false flag terrorist attack.

        Laid back? Craziest part of your post. Russian leaders have to be like Stalin to survive. Paranoid and ruthless. He is the furthest thing from laid back.

        • mihor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -31 year ago

          Any evidence for that or are you simply taking russophobic nonsense at face value?

        • @kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Generally speaking yes but it’s a nuanced thing. For example Japan was more or less forced to attack the US in WW2. US was aware of this when they cut off oil to Japan. They were essentially forcing the issue - declaring a war unofficially. They fully expected some attack from Japan at some point in the near future.

          Japan’s war machinery was focused in Asia - they didn’t want to go to war with the West. But to keep feeding their growing industrial base they needed resources… and all the good resources in the region were controlled by the European powers. In order to keep pushing forward in China, they needed to take Dutch/British/French territory in SE Asia. If they attacked one, they knew they would be at war with all. So they just sneak attacked all hoping that the American/European will to fight wouldn’t be as strong as theirs. Just like the way they won their war against Russia at the start of the 20th century. Unfortunately for them, the US was more than willing to fight and die for control over the Pacific.

          Ukraine v Russia is a bit different, though. I view it as an independence war starting in 2014 from the Euromaiden protests. Ukraine was firmly in Russian sphere - and it has been for hundreds of years. As soon as they want to pivot away from Russia with the coup in 2014, Russians come and annex Crimea. Then of course we have the slow 8 year fighting in the Donbas which eventually led to all-out war.

          • mihor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            You’re quite correct, though you left out that the West has been pushing for war since at least 2004 with the orange revolution and subsequently the 2014 illegal coup. The western orchestration and support was vital for these to occur and destabilize Ukraine. It caused a shift toward russophobic politics that sparked a civil war.