Jump to content

Ukraine 15 - Minsk II and other disappointing sequels


Horza

Recommended Posts

Mr. Fixit,

"First, do no harm". So, the only way to "do no harm" is to give the Russians what they want? After all we know what the word of the Russian State regarding their actions in Ukraine is worth. Should the same principle apply if the Russians make incursions into other non-NATO member States like Finland, Sweden, or Moldova?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Fixit,

"First, do no harm". So, the only way to "do no harm" is to give the Russians what they want?

And arming Ukraine will stop Russians from getting what they want, right?

Also, you are being too narrow-minded. Your concern seems to end with Russian neighbors. I myself am more concerned with Russian aspirations regarding Neptune and Andromeda galaxy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Fixit,

It might. However, doing nothing practically guarantees Eastern Ukraine will be incorporated into Russia along with it's prior conquest, Crimea.

...whicht would be preferable than incorporating the entire Ukraine in a graveyard. At least for the Ukrainians.

That is not a solution for the poor sods dying in the Ukraine. It's prolonging the war indefinitely. Of course making the enterprise ridiculously expensive for Russia is a solution for the next country, but then state that you want to sacrifice the Ukraine for that goal, not to help them.

If Kodiak island Alaska, with it's large Russian Orthodox population held a referendum and a majority declared their desire to rejoin Russia should they be allowed to join the Russian Federation?

Actually, yes. I consider self-determination one of the major human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...whicht would be preferable than incorporating the entire Ukraine in a graveyard. At least for the Ukrainians.

That is not a solution for the poor sods dying in the Ukraine. It's prolonging the war indefinitely. Of course making the enterprise ridiculously expensive for Russia is a solution for the next country, but then state that you want to sacrifice the Ukraine for that goal, not to help them.

Actually, yes. I consider self-determination one of the major human rights.

Ok, so you think Ukraine should just hold still so Russia can get it over with sooner, and if she fights back it's her own fault for getting more hurt...

Do you expect anyone to believe you consider self-determination to be a major human right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...whicht would be preferable than incorporating the entire Ukraine in a graveyard. At least for the Ukrainians.

That is not a solution for the poor sods dying in the Ukraine. It's prolonging the war indefinitely. Of course making the enterprise ridiculously expensive for Russia is a solution for the next country, but then state that you want to sacrifice the Ukraine for that goal, not to help them.

Exactly. I get the distinct feeling that some here would like nothing more than to fight Russia to the last drop of Ukrainian blood. They don't care about Ukraine or its people. Not really. Who gives a shit about potentially millions of dead people if it would economically and politically cripple Russia for the foreseeable future? Let's at least have the decency to state the real goals out loud.

I find this one year-old survey, as reported in Washington Post, quite illuminating in a tragicomic sort of way. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

the further our respondents thought that Ukraine was from its actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene militarily. Even controlling for a series of demographic characteristics and participants’ general foreign policy attitudes, we found that the less accurate our participants were, the more they wanted the U.S. to use force, the greater the threat they saw Russia as posing to U.S. interests, and the more they thought that using force would advance U.S. national security interests

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Fixit,

So, by that logic France and the UK really didn't care about Poland when they declared war on Germany because of Germany's invasion of Poland? What they should have done is worked with Hitler to get him to stop his attack without first "doing harm"?

You do realize that if we accept this as the norm any Nation-state willing to dig in its heels and attack first will get big chunks of other nation-states while everyone else falls all over themselves to "do no harm", right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this one year-old survey, as reported in Washington Post, quite illuminating in a tragicomic sort of way. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/

I'm just looking for my jaw on the floor. Quite a few respondents think Ukraine is in fact in the US, especially in Alaska. Canada, Greenland and Australia are also charming choices.

Scot,

To be honest, that's exactly what happened. France and UK declared war on Germany because of the treaty signed and... did nothing more. If France (with the help of RAF) made any attempt to engage Germany from the west during first weeks of Blitzkrieg, the IIWW might have looked quite differently. But they did nothing, hoping Hitler would be satisfied with Poland. The declaration of war itself was completely worthless, as no real action was behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Fixit,

I haven't called you a Nazi or Hitler. I'm merely pointing out how your logic applies to a historic parallel. Now, rather than attempting to dodge my point care to address it squarely?

Mr. Fixit,

Since you are an expert on this region what is your opinion regarding Russian cuplability for the genocide of the Circassians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are stupid. Attempting to imply that those of us who oppose Russian actions and support stronger measures to oppose the Russians are among the stupid is disengenious at best.

I'm afraid you lost me there. I agree with both your statements. But it doesn't cease to amaze me, that geographical knowledge of the average American is somewhat... limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...