Quote (ferdia @ Feb 15 2023 12:34pm)
i see Rssian activity prior to 2014 as appeasement to the US. In this regard appeasement from a perceived weakened position could be construed as erroneous on the part of Russia. It should be accepted that the US is the dominant superpower on this planet today and therefore its quite difficult to see a US reversal (hey lets back down) as appeasement in the face of a superior entity (Russia) does not exist, as Russia is not superior (capabilities). So yes 100% my position is that backing away from Ukraine and not perpetuating the war would remove the risk of a global world war. I thought i was very clear on this throughout this topic, but if i was not, yes, that is my position. Would this mean that Ukraine is "betrayed" yes. But I see that as inevitable. to be clear i see either Russia winning the war or WW3, which is pretty much the rationale for my position. Understand my position on how this conflict was created before condemning my position, thanks.
Regarding Taiwan, China is not in a hurry, as previously stated they are 1/2 way through their 100 year plan, all is going well, and their military is due to be "ready" on the global stage in about 20-30 years time (this means they expect to have superior troops tech and capabilities then the US by that point). They are playing the long game and winning. From a US perspective they will probably try to create a reason (as they did in Ukraine) to fight with China sooner, say, in the next 5-10 years, before China is ready, because the US acknowledges that China is now defacto their geopolitical superpower enemy (on the basis that they are a rising superpower and a challenge to US supremacy).
you do not acknowledge that improving Ukrainian military ability should be construed as an escalation. in this regard we are on opposite ends on this point. Do you acknowledge the Russian red line re: long range weapons and the US's (up to a point) agreement with this red line? this is freely available to google btw.
Its not erroneous at all and appeasement is not dependent on who is the dominant power; If it was it would be clearly Russia as the dominant power over Ukraine. However this is what appeasement is, literally
"the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace."
Do you think an expanded global war would be preferential for Russia? As in, is that something they Russia would accept if their ambitions in Ukraine are not accomplished?
I don't believe that is the case.
I also believe that Russia has expended every potential conventional escalation. I don't think Putin or Russia has anything to gain from using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine or elsewhere.
So what is the perceived threat/retribution to supplying Ukraine? In my opinion it is a self-imposed idea in the West; I agree that the war is extended by supplying Ukraine. But I think that is what Ukrainians want, they want to fight for their existence. They have proven that. Nobody expected them to resist as well as they have.
I also think it would be the wrong strategy to appease Putin's aggression by removing support for Ukraine. It would send a clear message that the West won't stand up for its allies, for its beliefs and for freedom on the European continent.
Furthermore I would expect that aiming for peace in the short term, would only lead to more conflicts in the future. Likely in Moldova, Serbia, Taiwan; Although I agree in part that a China is not in a hurry, but that Xi is also not going to live forever.
TLDR; Appeasing Russia in Ukraine will only lead to a broader war/conflict.
Can you elaborate on this?
"From a US perspective they will probably try to create a reason
(as they did in Ukraine)"
Do you actually believe that?
This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 15 2023 07:28am