Both Ukraine and Hamas are bent on capturing territory they do not control, and both are willing to sacrifice large numbers of lives to achieve this goal.
Neville Chamberlain cut a deal with Hitler to trade land for peace. We all know how that turned out. Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize for signing a peace treaty with North Vietnam, which then broke the treaty three years later by launching yet another invasion of South Vietnam.
Putin will take all of Ukraine if he can. A peace deal, absent an enforcement mechanism - such as stationing American, French, or British troops in what's left of Ukraine - will just be a chance for Russia to rearm and invade again in a few years. And all signs point to Putin being unwilling to take a deal that doesn't leave Ukraine disarmed and ready to be conquered.
It’s never been clear to me that Munich made things worse. Why was the military situation better in September of ‘38 than a year later? Britain and France were not able to do jack shit for Poland when they declared war in 1939. Why could they have helped Czechoslovakia a year ago. Indeed, Britain and France utterly failed to protect the independence of Poland, which was swallowed up by the Soviet Union. France was occupied and Britain lost and empire.
Sudetenland contained most of the defensive stations/infrastructure so giving it up made the later invasion much easier whilst also emboldening Hitler to keep pushing his luck which led to the invasion of Poland.
In other words, Ukraine in 2022 proved far more resilient than the Czechs in 1938. The Czechs certainly weren’t going to get direct military aid because 1) they were landlocked and 2) neither Britain nor France was willing to attack Germany until after the US and USSR entered the war. After declaring war in 1939, the allies did nothing useful for Poland.
No, not in other words. Britain was attacking Germany before the US joined the war, or by attack do you mean invade Germany itself? Britain was fighting Germany on land, sea and air already.
I’ve read that argument before, yet if you look at how quickly the Czechs just rankly capitulated, it seems fair to question their value as allies. There’s also the question of how Britain and France could have helped a landlocked country hundreds of miles to the east.
It might or might not have made things worse from a military standpoint, but that's irrelevant. The point is that when Hitler was offered land for peace, Hitler took the land, but *there was no peace*.
As a general rule, conquerers and would-be conquerers, such as Napoleon, Alexander, Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Saddam Hussein, will keep on conquering until they're stopped by military force or the threat of military force. I see no reason to expect Putin to be any different.
1. Their goals and motivations are fundamentally different. Ukraine only wants to be left alone by Russia, whereas Hamas is bent on destroying the state of Israel and killing/enslaving its Jewish population.
2. Ukraine is recognized as a sovereign country by virtually every nation, whereas the Gaza Strip has never been an independent political entity, and Hamas has little diplomatic support outside the Middle East (and even there it’s limited).
3. Hamas initiated the conflict against Israel, killing and kidnapping some 1400 people. Ukraine, by contrast, was attacked without provocation by Russia.
4. The Gaza Strip is of almost no strategic significance to any country, even its neighbors; it’s primarily humanitarian concerns that drive opposition to Israeli policy. By contrast, Russia now poses a significant threat to Europe, hence their support of Ukraine and scramble to rearm in the face of Russian aggression.
Agreed. Now would Ukraine be “ok” with Russia taking 20% of their territory? No, and they are fully justified in not being ok, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t willing to sign a peace deal that includes security guarantees from the west and/or military aid in exchange for a de facto recognition of Russia’s occupation.
And Ukraine would have every incentive to honor that deal, because unlike Hamas, they’re not a suicidal death cult.
I’ll answer that as soon as you explain why Russia invaded in the first place. Putting aside military capabilities, Hamas has far more in common with Russia ideologically than with Ukraine: they’re both expansionist, xenophobic, homophobic, ethnocratic and have a rather unfriendly history with Jews.
So terrorism is defined by size of armies and not the actual definition then?
Who is assaulting civilians in order to force political changes David? It is the Russians. There are countless cases of civilians being hunted down by Russian drones for example.
Once you embrace premises like “any sane msn will avoid getting mobilized to freeze or die in trenches,” conclusions like “peace is often more desirable than recapturing territory” follow rather naturally. If it were reconquer Zaporozia or starve, then, by all means fight. Thankfully, Ukrainians don’t live that close to the bone. They can move to western Ukrainian cities and get jobs!
OFC they should not die for bands of territory in the East, Status Quo as is would be fine. But its the lack of guarantees that is problematic. Ukrainians would be OK with freezing the borders as they are if they could get into nato.
But anyway, its sad to see so much misplaced pacifism lately. During all the Biden admin, Ukrainians were limited in their aggressive capabilities.
Im of the ones who believe a more decisive help from the West would have brought the current Russian regime to its knees and opened the way to a pacification of this Empire.
After all, France was pacified, Prussia was pacified, but Russia has been kept intact, with all its will to control the neighbouring lands.
As is, it will be a thorn in the side of peaceful countries.
If France and Britain sent in peacekeepers, things might work out nicely. Asking Finland to do that seems silly— better nuclear armed powers under no immediate Russian threat, though if the Baltic States want to virtue signal I would let them
Neville Chamberlain cut a deal with Hitler to trade land for peace. We all know how that turned out. Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize for signing a peace treaty with North Vietnam, which then broke the treaty three years later by launching yet another invasion of South Vietnam.
Putin will take all of Ukraine if he can. A peace deal, absent an enforcement mechanism - such as stationing American, French, or British troops in what's left of Ukraine - will just be a chance for Russia to rearm and invade again in a few years. And all signs point to Putin being unwilling to take a deal that doesn't leave Ukraine disarmed and ready to be conquered.
It’s never been clear to me that Munich made things worse. Why was the military situation better in September of ‘38 than a year later? Britain and France were not able to do jack shit for Poland when they declared war in 1939. Why could they have helped Czechoslovakia a year ago. Indeed, Britain and France utterly failed to protect the independence of Poland, which was swallowed up by the Soviet Union. France was occupied and Britain lost and empire.
Sudetenland contained most of the defensive stations/infrastructure so giving it up made the later invasion much easier whilst also emboldening Hitler to keep pushing his luck which led to the invasion of Poland.
In other words, Ukraine in 2022 proved far more resilient than the Czechs in 1938. The Czechs certainly weren’t going to get direct military aid because 1) they were landlocked and 2) neither Britain nor France was willing to attack Germany until after the US and USSR entered the war. After declaring war in 1939, the allies did nothing useful for Poland.
No, not in other words. Britain was attacking Germany before the US joined the war, or by attack do you mean invade Germany itself? Britain was fighting Germany on land, sea and air already.
I’ve read that argument before, yet if you look at how quickly the Czechs just rankly capitulated, it seems fair to question their value as allies. There’s also the question of how Britain and France could have helped a landlocked country hundreds of miles to the east.
It might or might not have made things worse from a military standpoint, but that's irrelevant. The point is that when Hitler was offered land for peace, Hitler took the land, but *there was no peace*.
As a general rule, conquerers and would-be conquerers, such as Napoleon, Alexander, Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Saddam Hussein, will keep on conquering until they're stopped by military force or the threat of military force. I see no reason to expect Putin to be any different.
Ukraine and Hamas have nothing in common.
1. Their goals and motivations are fundamentally different. Ukraine only wants to be left alone by Russia, whereas Hamas is bent on destroying the state of Israel and killing/enslaving its Jewish population.
2. Ukraine is recognized as a sovereign country by virtually every nation, whereas the Gaza Strip has never been an independent political entity, and Hamas has little diplomatic support outside the Middle East (and even there it’s limited).
3. Hamas initiated the conflict against Israel, killing and kidnapping some 1400 people. Ukraine, by contrast, was attacked without provocation by Russia.
4. The Gaza Strip is of almost no strategic significance to any country, even its neighbors; it’s primarily humanitarian concerns that drive opposition to Israeli policy. By contrast, Russia now poses a significant threat to Europe, hence their support of Ukraine and scramble to rearm in the face of Russian aggression.
Agreed. Now would Ukraine be “ok” with Russia taking 20% of their territory? No, and they are fully justified in not being ok, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t willing to sign a peace deal that includes security guarantees from the west and/or military aid in exchange for a de facto recognition of Russia’s occupation.
And Ukraine would have every incentive to honor that deal, because unlike Hamas, they’re not a suicidal death cult.
I never said they are identical
If Russia stopped attacking Ukraine and just kept the territory it controls, would Ukraine be ok with that?
I’ll answer that as soon as you explain why Russia invaded in the first place. Putting aside military capabilities, Hamas has far more in common with Russia ideologically than with Ukraine: they’re both expansionist, xenophobic, homophobic, ethnocratic and have a rather unfriendly history with Jews.
Russia invaded because it wanted to destroy Ukraine and thought it could do so.
So the ones defending against the terroristic assault are the actual terrorists?
If you’re not a Russian troll, you certainly can’t tell the difference
Your foreign policy seems to hinge upon flinging terms of abuse and opprobrium rather than analyzing power relations.
It hinges on recognizing abuses David, the opposite of your accusations. Human rights and the post WW2 World order that has been so good to the world.
terrorism is a tactic used by non-state actors. you are making it a moral fetish
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism
Russians certainly aren’t terrorists, they are state actors with large, conventional armies. Ditto Ukrainians.
So terrorism is defined by size of armies and not the actual definition then?
Who is assaulting civilians in order to force political changes David? It is the Russians. There are countless cases of civilians being hunted down by Russian drones for example.
You ignore this because you are a tool.
Anything without strong guarantees will ensure that the male population flee as soon as martial law is lifted.
Also, if you care about Ukrainian lives, do not equate them with palestinians.
If Ukrainian men would rather flee than fight, wouldn’t that be a pretty strong reason for ending the war?
Any sane man will avoid getting mobilized to freeze or die in trenches. Especially against a much bigger opponent.
Russian men even more so. Thats why so much of them fled Russia at the first rumors of partial mobilization.
And a peace without guarantee will mean war in the next decade, so sane men will leave.
And Ukraine would become another no man's land like Transnistria. Easily conquerable.
And a people that fought for independence during the last centuries will eventually be wiped off.
But I guess "Might is Right", thats your belief.
Once you embrace premises like “any sane msn will avoid getting mobilized to freeze or die in trenches,” conclusions like “peace is often more desirable than recapturing territory” follow rather naturally. If it were reconquer Zaporozia or starve, then, by all means fight. Thankfully, Ukrainians don’t live that close to the bone. They can move to western Ukrainian cities and get jobs!
OFC they should not die for bands of territory in the East, Status Quo as is would be fine. But its the lack of guarantees that is problematic. Ukrainians would be OK with freezing the borders as they are if they could get into nato.
But anyway, its sad to see so much misplaced pacifism lately. During all the Biden admin, Ukrainians were limited in their aggressive capabilities.
Im of the ones who believe a more decisive help from the West would have brought the current Russian regime to its knees and opened the way to a pacification of this Empire.
After all, France was pacified, Prussia was pacified, but Russia has been kept intact, with all its will to control the neighbouring lands.
As is, it will be a thorn in the side of peaceful countries.
If France and Britain sent in peacekeepers, things might work out nicely. Asking Finland to do that seems silly— better nuclear armed powers under no immediate Russian threat, though if the Baltic States want to virtue signal I would let them
It is important that Ukrain fights unprovoked war. This cannot be dismissed
Is there any military situation that would make you think otherwise? When will Ukraine recapture it’s lost oblasts?