Yes, some people still argue for appeasement.
Are you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position?
You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
Are you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position?
You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
I see the point. But I disagree with that...
* First we need to make sure we tried every other option. If WW III does start we need to be 100% sure it wasn't started when there was some other option.
* I think he's a very logical actor. People incorrectly say that his operations don't make sense. They make perfect sense. He did test runs in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Syria. The west didn't do anything so he assumed nothing bad will happen
The problem is he's stuck now. He wants to withdraw but he can't without looking weak. He climbed too high on the tree and he knows that if he withdraws without a "win" he won't live much longer. The west needs to find a way that he can spin as a "win" moving forward. Otherwise this might snowball.
This is the part that's particularly scary to me.
> Mr. Putin’s tendency, American intelligence officials have told the White House and Congress, is to double down when he feels trapped by his own overreach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/us/politics/biden-putin-s...
Rational or not doesn't really matter if what he wants is a war (I mean, he already started a war with Ukraine of course).
It's a persecution complex that's very common in Russia. They're paranoid about western expansion. This has some historical merit to be fair.
Compared to other OECD countries, South Korea's female suicide rate is highest with 15.0 deaths by suicide per 100,000 deaths according to the suicidal rate list, while the male suicide rate is third highest with 32.5 per every 100,000 deaths.
Not like they were negotiating in good faith anyways, as they continued to shell the East.
I don't agree that we have to find a way for Putin to save face.
At some point there will be a coup d'etat, if the army and the oligarchs suffered too much.
Keep in mind he killed all opposition in Russia.
People don't know what they are talking about. It is extremely simple, just 2 words - missile defense. Russia has nukes and NATO wants to protect themselves by moving their missile defense systems closer to the Russian border, to shoot the nukes down before they can reach the atmosphere. Russian army and economy suck and they won't be able to handle a standout with NATO armies without nukes, so Putin makes "special operations" to prevent them from moving missile defense systems closer. Simple
These can be launched into the orbit from any point on Earth, and de-orbited onto the target from literally any direction in the sky.
It's one of the reasons why it's so hard to defend against them.
If Putin says its war then it's war, no? The west has justified not intervening to avoid war. If it's war anyway, then we should intervene. If this isn't explicit enough, we should intervene militarily in Ukraine.
> You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
Not really, there's a lot implied by my comment...
Russia will quickly start losing a conventional war. They would turn to nukes. When it seems like Russia is losing, all nuclear nations would be on high alert. They being on high alert with fingers on triggers is bad not just for Nato and Russia but also for non participating countries like China, India, Pakistan, Israel, NK because when there is a nuclear war on the horizon, everyone wants to be on the alert. However, each country raising alert will cause suspicion on the other country. For example, China raising its alert level will trigger India to do the same followed by Pakistan. All it takes now is one nuke to fly (may be between Nato and Russia or even a false launch detection). Now all countries will trigger all their nukes purely out of suspicion in the fog of war due to panic.
So that's why Russia can shoot/burn or destroy people /cities /infrastructure, NATO will not lift a single finger in terms of actual participation in war to help Ukraine (whatever the public opinion might be).
So what is the trigger in your opinion: NATO involvement, or losing the war?
What do you think would happen if NATO doesn't intervene and Putin still loses the war?
The best outcome at this juncture is to fall back to western most cities and save as much land and army as they can. Especially the army pinned in the eastern most provinces have to start moving back and meet up with the remnants in Kharkiv, Kyiv and other cities. If they fall back fast, RA cannot really pursue them as their supply lines are stretched as well. They have to get mobile and freely move around now for any chance of preventing a complete rout (and capture of the army at breakaway provinces).