This war has gone on long enough. It’s time to negotiate with Mr. Hitler

:up:

Keeping up the reliance on expert opinion I see.

Negotiating with Russia is like appeasing Hitler — Some hack no-one's ever heard of

There is a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, there again an example from history how these can end. — Isaac

Sure, Russia could withdraw from Crimea and Donbas as much as Isreal withdrew from the Sinai peninsula this could be a step toward peace.

I see your understanding of historicism is about as strong as your understanding of underdetermination

I'm interrogating that claim. You were the one who brought it up, that it is ridiculous to think Ukraine could invade Russia and win. — Isaac

In a way it's just like Finland in 1940. It didn't win Russia. It survived and wasn't annexed as the Baltic States. Finns don't refer to winning the war, but sure are proud about it.

Nothing. It's a perfectly understandable position. It's you who keep popping up every time someone presents any alternative to this narrative to claim their view is ridiculous. — Isaac

More historicist crap.

There is a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, there again an example from history how these can end. — Isaac

What is historicist crap?

There isn't a peace deal with North and South Korea. That is a fact. It's one possibility here. If people are so fixated that Putin cannot back down and find an agreement, then this is one possibility.

Peace agreement with Egypt and Israel, as peace agreements in general in the Arab-Israeli conflict, can also happen. (Usually with the peacemakers actually been killed afterwards)

You have given absolutely no reasons why historical examples cannot show us what the possibilities of the future outcome in this war is.

, the existential thing is quoting Putin. Strategic interests are other matters. Then there's the context, further elaborating interests. Besides, going by strategic interests points at a plain land grab, however shrouded in rhetoric.

As an aside, suggested by Zaporizhzhia:

He would see this country burn if he could be King of the ashes — Lord Varys

Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen.
— Manuel
No. Actually the West did. Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period.
But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. — ssu

This isn’t true. NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea.

This war has gone on long enough. It’s time to negotiate with Mr. Hitler — SophistiCat

"These made up quotes transferred from one war to another are just what one would expect from Himmler's propaganda machine." God.

NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea. — Xtrix

By Ukrainians, yes.

You have given absolutely no reasons why historical examples cannot show us what the possibilities of the future outcome in this war is. — ssu

It's a fairly standard argument against historicism. I thought you'd already be familiar with it. We can always point to some subset of the hundreds of factors leading to some historical event and say those factors are similar to these factors in some modern setting and so the historical event is instructive regarding the modern circumstance.

The trouble is that we can pick virtually any event, with any one of dozens of different end results and claim it to be relevant to modern circumstances simply by choosing a different subset of 'relevant factors'.

Thus we can use evidence from historical events to support literally any theory simply by selecting our preferred outcome and picking those factors which make our chosen event 'similar' enough to seem relevant.

Historicism is useful in eliminating that which is implausible (say, if it's never happened before), bug it's useless in the manner you're using it - to advance some theory. All it shows is that your theory meets the bare minimum threshold of being plausible, but no one has denied that so it's not a claim you need you support.

This isn’t true. NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea. — Xtrix

It is true.

Bush ago something years ago. Even if he would be a President for life in the US, it's not his decision. It is totally another thing for Ukraine to get into NATO.

And several countries said quite openly that Ukraine shouldn't be in NATO. Starting with Germany:

(Feb 15th, 2022) Olaf Scholz has appeared to rule out any prospect of Nato membership for Ukraine after talks with Vladimir Putin.

“The fact is that all involved know that Nato membership for Ukraine is not on the agenda,” the German chancellor said, in the clearest comments yet by a Western leader on the question.

“Everyone must step back a bit here and be clear that we can’t have a military conflict over a question that is not on the agenda."

So Putin had his assurances that Ukraine would not be in NATO prior attacking Ukraine.

Hence the "NATO made Putin do it" is quite a horseload...

If Russia are useless at invading places they cannot at the same time be a serious threat to any great number of such places. One cannot be both a global threat, and impotent. With what power would such a threat be realised? — Isaac

That's a crappy (N.B. not ridiculous just crappy) argument.

• Russia is failing this war but it was able to cause lots of damage at different levels to Ukraine and the West. So the possibility that Russia is in no condition to win the war, doesn’t imply that Russia can still cause lots of damage (economic, infrastructural, human, political).
• Lots of people prefer evidence over imagination (not your case of course): now we have evidence of Russians’ failures.

That's not even a counterargument. :roll:

If Russia are useless at invading places they cannot at the same time be a serious threat to any great number of such places. One cannot be both a global threat, and impotent. With what power would such a threat be realised? — Isaac

Agreeing with @neomac.() If Ukraine wouldn't get the huge Western assistance, Russia would likely win this war. Ukraine itself simply wouldn't have had the arms to defend against Russia.

We make judgments based on the details of the circumstances we find ourselves in rather than sweeping generalisations based on very tangentially related situations in the past. — Isaac

Who is "We" ? Who are those who make "sweeping generalisations based on very tangentially related situations in the past." ? Why "sweeping"? Why "very tangentially"?
Or you simply mean that one doesn't need history when imagination is enough?

Bravo. :cheer:

Have to put this quote to this thread:

(March 1941) “ … What are we doing supplying all these arms to the British? Don’t misunderstand me, no one is a bigger admirer of the British than I am. So brave, the way they fight on, in spite of everything.

But isn’t this lend-lease deal simply prolonging the inevitable? It’s not the cost to the taxpayer I’m concerned about – although my God it does add up, doesn’t it? No, I’m talking about the cost in British lives.

It’s easy for these armchair generals to talk about the need to stand up to Mr. Hitler but I don’t see any of them enlisting. I have to ask: How long can this war go on? Do we keep sending Britain arms forever? I mean, what’s our exit strategy?...”

Russia stretches just about all the way to Japan, to Alaska, out to the Pacific.

So you admit that Ukraine could not possibly successfully invade Russia? — Isaac

As far as I know (correct me if wrong), they've never expressed wanting to, threatened with, or the like. Not their interest. Why would anyone anyway? The only reason that comes to mind as such, is as a defensive measure. I guess, technically at least, it's possible that this could change. Until then, there's not much threat to Russia (like there is to Ukraine).

Not a whole lot of countries could occupy Russia, if that was the aim of an invasion.

Russia is failing this war but it was able to cause lots of damage at different levels to Ukraine and the West. So the possibility that Russia is in no condition to win the war, doesn’t imply that Russia can still cause lots of damage (economic, infrastructural, human, political). — neomac

The key word was 'serious'. Lots of global events cause that level of damage - from local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty... Do we mount a multi-billion dollar campaign against each? No.

It is the use of the 'evil, world-threatening Russia' trope as s justification for the huge military involvement which is at odds with the notion of it also being a bumbling has-been shambles of an army.

Yes, a bumbling has-been shambles of an army can still cause damage. So can a bad public health strategy. Seems hard to find so much as a few quid to fund those.

That's not even a counterargument. — ssu

That's not even a counterargument.

Who is "We" ? Who are those who make "sweeping generalisations based on very tangentially related situations in the past." ? Why "sweeping"? Why "very tangentially"? — neomac

Again, I'm not handholding you through fairly simple concepts, you need a minimum level of comprehension.

Not a whole lot of countries could occupy Russia, if that was the aim of an invasion. — jorndoe

So what about the contested regions? Russia thinks they're part of Russia now and "not a whole lot of countries could occupy Russia".

Does the unwillingness of the UN to ratify the sham referendums somehow change the relative military advantages?

I'm struggling to reconcile "a NATO-supported Ukraine were no military threat to Russia" with "NATO-supported Ukraine could easily take parts of (what Russia now considers) Russia"

, you tell me?

The referendums don't really mean anything, as per the UN and most others (is my guess). Those regions aren't part of Russia, regardless of what some Russians think, contrary to what Ukrainians think. I suppose Putin could always arrange/allow for a real vote. They had to invade first and what-not, though, which is kind of telling from the get-go. No particular change, militarily or otherwise, is a consequence of the referendums. The show rolls on.

Anyway, you tell me?

Very much so, the simple fact that almost everybody can use Twitter to boast about something or to report on an event, very much affects the reactions of other world leaders. So, this recent counteroffensive carried out by Ukraine is a huge embarrassment for Russia and this is something which adds more fuel to the fire.

It's as you say, in history one can find examples of almost every possible event playing out and though there are some useful or interesting things than can be learned that may apply here, these things are rarely identical.

Assume that during the Gulf War in 1991 the Iraqi armed forces would have had high fighting moral and similar combat capabilities as Israeli Defence Forces has and the US lead coalition would have suffered similar defeats as Russia has now. What do you think would have happened? Would it have been better then for the US to make the bluff of using nukes? How much weight to you give this embarrasment issue? — ssu

I think this thought experiment doesn't work for the present case, but let's see.

Well, the US would use it's might military to flatten Iraq, in this case, as it later did in 2003. The crucial difference in here is that who would dare sanction the US to the extent Russia is now? The US would not only be embarrassed but furious. Heck, the government threw a hissy fit just because France did not join in on the Iraq War, with zero consequences for the US.

Now let's add to your scenario, that not only is the US sanctioned, but China, Europe, Russia all join together in a military organization, that keeps giving Iraqis weapons that kill Americans. Would the US bluff and use nukes?

Well, they strongly considered doing that in Vietnam, but stopped short of it. In this scenario, the stakes are so much higher, that I don't think the US would bluff...

So, yeah, the embarrassment issue is not a small one.

It is true.

Bush ago something years ago. Even if he would be a President for life in the US, it's not his decision. It is totally another thing for Ukraine to get into NATO. — ssu

It isn’t true. The NATO summit of 2008, for those that remember, made it very clear indeed:

The Kremlin realizes it doesn't have the power to force the West to reverse its recognition of Kosovo's independence or persuade Washington to drop its plan to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.

"Georgia's accession into NATO will be seen here as an attempt to trigger a war in the Caucasus, and NATO membership for Ukraine will be interpreted as an effort to foment a conflict with Russia," said Sergei Markov, a Russian parliament member with close links to the Kremlin.

Amid a litany of such threats from Moscow, some NATO members are reluctant to inflame tensions at the three-day summit that begins Wednesday in Bucharest.

On Monday, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said admitting the two countries to NATO was "not a matter of whether, but when." However, he said the launch of the membership process might be delayed at this week's gathering.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080410213408/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_eu/russia_vs_nato_1

Georgia and Ukraine were denied membership because of Russian objections— Putin, remember, was invited to that summit.

From NATO summit 2021:

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm

None of this supports your claim. The US and NATO were pushing for Ukrainian membership long before Crimea. Manuel is right: the West ignored Russian warnings, over and over again.

In case it needs to be said yet again: this doesn’t justify Putin’s actions, and it doesn’t mean the US is the sole cause of the war. Let’s try to grow out of immediately jumping to those conclusions — and keep to the facts.

Lots of global events cause that level of damage - from local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty... Do we mount a multi-billion dollar campaign against each? No. — Isaac

There are no "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that is causing one single subject, Putin.

So Putin had his assurances that Ukraine would not be in NATO prior attacking Ukraine. — ssu

Read the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership from September 2021. Doesn’t seem all that reassuring.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/

Also:

“There is no change, there will be no change,” Blinken said when asked whether the formal response delivered to Moscow includes any alteration to NATO’s “open door policy,” which states that membership in the alliance is open to any European country that is in a position to “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.”

https://news.yahoo.com/there-will-be-no-change-us-bats-down-russian-demands-in-ukraine-crisis-210222078.html

Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period. But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. — ssu

I can't believe that 360 pages into this topic people still get historical facts wrong.

2008 NATO Bucharest Summit:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

I think the Ukrainian government should arrange a large formal ceremony, to officially declare the Russian referendums not worth the papers they're written on.
They could invite foreigners, like government officials, UN representatives, reporters from all over, etc.
There would be lots of suits, a speech or two, paper signing, handshaking, shoulder padding, all the usual, with a bit of fanfare.
Importantly, the ceremony would be broadcast in great detail, whether live or not, but preferably available to Russians.
Could be held in Kyiv, Warsaw, some such, perhaps with some large outdoor screens for onlookers, Poland has lots of Ukrainian refugees.
Depending on any onlookers showing up, some of them could be interviewed as well, rounding things up neatly.

What say you?

Yes indeed. See above as well, from 2021 Summit.