Reply With QuoteDo we carry on as is then, or ramp things up?Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I don't think Russia stops unless it's a stitch up.
Do we carry on as is then, or ramp things up?
It's full of middle aged white men 🤣🤣
I don't think it's negative to suggest that any deal will not last anyway and I don't really think about it tbh, it's not my problem. I don't really like the idea of Trump marching around the world carving pieces of countries up and claiming victory.
Ukraine could have sat down with Russia and sorted out a shit deal where they give away territory themselves, the only thing trump adds is pressure on them to accept it.
It's like a guy seeing a kid getting bullied. He goes over, puts his hand in the kids pocket and hands 10% of the kids money over to the bully. He then tells the kid how much he just helped him. Noble peace prize for that great hero, and what have you incentivised the bully to do tomorrow?
To answer your question... Russia have played chicken with the west, knowing the USA would buckle in support of Ukraine eventually. I'd carry on as is, we aren't fighting the war for Ukraine, they aren't an unwilling participant as far as my limited knowledge goes. That's the game of chicken for you, someone jumps first.
Yeah I certainly see your point. I just don't think we have the desire to support Ukraine properly (in effect risk a nuclear war) and I don't think it's sustainable to carry on. The US voters suggested that. The German election will likely demonstrate it too. Not as direct results of supporting Ukraine perhaps, but because of secondary impacts like the cost of aid and energy. So I don't think it can carry on as is.
It's far from ideal, esp for Ukraine who will no doubt view it as an historical mistake, but I suppose thats not an uncommon result of peace settlements which are neatly always compromises, or fights to the end.
any peace settlement agreed without Ukraine being part of the discussions will not last
Agreed
The US voters wanted someone who'd reduce the cost of living first and foremost according to the poll I saw this week (79 per cent, the biggest single reason why people voted Republican). Incoming Governments always claim they have been given a mandate for everything that was in their manifesto, but your average person only votes on the basics or maybe on a pet, pretty minor, policy of theirs that the new Government supports, they don't go through the manifestos with a fine toothcomb and then not vote for any party that has something in them that they don't agree with.
I'm pretty sure there weren't many Americans who voted for Trump to do a Neville Chamberlain impersonation by appeasing Putin, bnt it didn't stop him winning - albeit by only about 1.5 per cent, yet that's big enough for him to start acting like some kind of monarch apparently.
It depends on which territory has been “ lost” by Ukraine , if it’s the majority Russian speaking area then it will work. If it’s more than that then it’s back to square one.
Less not forget many Russian speaking Ukrainian people have been persecuted by Ultranationalist groups in recent times, but that doesn’t appear to be in the news at all.
[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;5572295]The US voters wanted someone who'd reduce the cost of living first and foremost according to the poll I saw this week (79 per cent, the biggest single reason why people voted Republican). Incoming Governments always claim they have been given a mandate for everything that was in their manifesto, but your average person only votes on the basics or maybe on a pet, pretty minor, policy of theirs that the new Government supports, they don't go through the manifestos with a fine toothcomb and then not vote for any party that has something in them that they don't agree with.
I'm pretty sure there weren't many Americans who voted for Trump to do a Neville Chamberlain impersonation by appeasing Putin, bnt it didn't stop him winning - albeit by only about 1.5 per cent, yet that's big enough for him to start acting like some kind of monarch apparently.[/QUOTES q]
Yeah of course. US voters weren't voting on Ukraine as a number one issue, although the money to fund it was an issue in itself. Moreover the war did raise global prices so there is the indirect link. That is felt more keenly in Europe with Germany the biggest if not the most impacted example. And we see it there, where one way or another maintaining the war in Europe is having a big impact across the continent and it's hard to sustain.
I think that's the issue. We won't beat Russia without being embroiled in a very serious global conflict, which I don't think we want. We also almost certainly won't see Putin voluntarily back down. So the option is a continued war that destabilises Europe, is increasing unsustainable and costs hundreds of thousands of lives. Or. We seek some kind of peace, that will never be on perfect terms but peace never is.
I also think you know the Neville Chamberlain comparison is not accurate. If nothing else it should refer to when Putin took Crimea when everyone shrugged their shoulders.
Headline below is "Zelensky to meet Vance as Trump pushes for Ukraine peace talks..". Is that really such a dreadful thing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c24728zpp70t
[QUOTE=JamesWales;5572304]Of course it's appeasement and the notion that, having got chunks of Ukraine back, Putin will stop at that is laughable. i agree there should have been a response to what happened in 2014, but all you're doing in bringing that up is arguing that two wrongs make a right.
[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;5572305]No one doubts there is an element of appeasement. But these things are a balance aren't they? Bit of appeasement in the mix that hopefully brings peace? When has a war ever ended without a degree of that? Unless one side destroys the other, every peace settlement ends in an element of appeasement, no?
Again, I just don't see what the alternative is? Do we continue as is, or do you think we should ramp up support. Push Russia back. Does that end the long term threat too? History there would also say it shouldn't.
I just think we should welcome talks on peace. The idea it will encourage Russia to start a war again, when it is already at war anyway seems a tad nonsensical.
This will all be down to what Ukraine things. If they aren't happy the war will continue, but I think peace talks between the US, Russia and Ukraine is something we should be cautiously optimistic about. There is no optimism elsewhere.
it's a bit more complicated than saying that "Russian speaking Ukrainian people have been persecuted by Ultranationalist groups in recent times".
yes there has been, but this was in response to Russian financed and armed groups causing trouble in the region. They have done it before elsewhere and will almost certainly do it again in the future
They will play the tinniest of parts, be involved, and have to accept Trump's decision. He's calling all the shots. They are tired and want it over. They defended well and, in the end, would lose a small proportion of land when Putin wanted the whole Country. Both Leaders need to be able to tell their people they had a victory and that part of the World can settle back down to some normality.
Let them flatten Swansea and improve it.
Russia is currently occupying about 20% of Ukraine, with more than 3 million Ukrainians living there under occupation.
If it was in the uk that would be equivalent to giving up an area double the size of wales with 10% of the UK population living it -it would never be considered.
I know, but if the US withdraws support what would the eventual outcome be?
Putin is in a stronger position, there is going to have to be a lot of compromise, the wording from the US and Trump gives clear indications about what's going to need to happen.
Your last line doesn't really mean anything in the context of Eastern Europe, the history of the Soviet Union, the fact that red lines on maps don't delineate peoples in that region perfectly, mixed cultural heritage, the history of Ukraine, the military might of Russia and repeated incursions into Ukrainian territory etc etc etc.
I see Trump has side-lined the people who started this mess in 2014, and now the EU have jumped in to direct Zelensky.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ign-relations/
the person who started this in 2014 is Vladimir Putin, and trump has done the opposite of sideline him
Sidelining him was the right thing to do but it hasn't worked. Its screwed Europe's economy leading to political destabilisation. It didn't stop him invading Ukraine and it's led to 200,000 odd deaths. It's not working. We can carry on. Or we can seek peace or we can massively ramp it up and risk a far more serious conflict.
US, Ukraine and Russia will very likely enter peace talks in the coming days.
Seriously now, what do people want to hear on the ten o clock news tonight?
"Peace talks fail as Russia launches missiles into Ukraine killing dozens"
or
"Peace talks to take place next week" ??
There is no optimal solution, but there never is. The option of peace is at least worth exploring though.
Thats totally incorrect, its been pointed out ( and dismissed) numerous times in the past.
There is a 'western narrative' about 2014 which I completely reject, but that said the instigator of the current war is Putin and Trump (as Rjk says) has maintained a close and admiring relationship with him since at least his first term (before that I think) and has ensured he is not sidelined or isolated.
The U.S intervened because a pro Russian president won during a fair election process. 11 years and billions of dollars later it looks as if things are back where they started both in territory and political balance.
Im happy to stand corrected.
Posting Permissions
