O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

[Jampie]

Ukraine doing to Russia what Russia was already doing to Ukraine is, by definition, not escalation. Not sure why people can't understand this rather obvious fact.

[slack_pie]

Sorry if this is an oversimplification but if somebody breaks into a mate's house, rapes the women in there and takes the valuable stuff - then your mate fights back even though outnumbered and sends you a message to get round there quick - what do you do? Are you escalating the conflict by going there? Semantically you could argue yes, but really no, of course not.

To carry on with this clumsy analogy, even if your mate does decide to negotiate, what do you do when the robbers not only refuse to give anything back but also demand stuff from other houses on the street they haven't even burgled yet? If you don't let them have everything on the streets they have chosen, are you reallly the ones escalating?

I think wanting peace is a noble aim - you don't like seeing people die in war because you care about human life. That's a good thing.

I think naivety comes into it a little bit if you ignore where we have ended up in the past with American isolationism and European democracies being OK with expansionist dictators taking what they believe belongs to them. The answer is not less war.

I'm not sure the analogy works. Of course going round to your mate's house to help keep invaders at bay isn't escalation, it's defending your property. But if your mate lent you his pickup truck and drove it round to the attackers' house and smashed their windows, that would be escalation.

So in your mind, the answer to war is more war. I understand, but I don't agree. If you have one side that is an aggressor and another side that is defending its territory, that's one thing. But if you have two sides that are actively raising the stakes, where does it end? It has to end somewhere. I can't see Russia backing down - Putin's whole strong-man persona would fall apart both domestically and internationally if he didn't follow through on his threats and retreated in the face of the West. Obviously Russia can't be allowed to win. So it has to be a negotiated end, and that means both sides get less than what they want.

[i961pie]

I'm not sure the analogy works. Of course going round to your mate's house to help keep invaders at bay isn't escalation, it's defending your property. But if your mate lent you his pickup truck and drove it round to the attackers' house and smashed their windows, that would be escalation.

So in your mind, the answer to war is more war. I understand, but I don't agree. If you have one side that is an aggressor and another side that is defending its territory, that's one thing. But if you have two sides that are actively raising the stakes, where does it end? It has to end somewhere. I can't see Russia backing down - Putin's whole strong-man persona would fall apart both domestically and internationally if he didn't follow through on his threats and retreated in the face of the West. Obviously Russia can't be allowed to win. So it has to be a negotiated end, and that means both sides get less than what they want.

Yes but only one side lose and that's Ukraine. I can't imagine any country that lost land to an invader would be happy. Will Russia give up the Kursk region in any deal?

[Jampie]

If you have one side that is an aggressor and another side that is defending its territory, that's one thing.

That's exactly this situation.

[Lullapie]

Yes but only one side lose and that's Ukraine. I can't imagine any country that lost land to an invader would be happy. Will Russia give up the Kursk region in any deal?

There's a saying in New Zealand that goes 'sometimes you have to suck the kumara'. It's been corrupted over the years to mean that you have to take an unpalatable step to bring an end to something that is dragging on.

[Lullapie]

I'm not sure the analogy works. Of course going round to your mate's house to help keep invaders at bay isn't escalation, it's defending your property. But if your mate lent you his pickup truck and drove it round to the attackers' house and smashed their windows, that would be escalation.

So in your mind, the answer to war is more war. I understand, but I don't agree. If you have one side that is an aggressor and another side that is defending its territory, that's one thing. But if you have two sides that are actively raising the stakes, where does it end? It has to end somewhere. I can't see Russia backing down - Putin's whole strong-man persona would fall apart both domestically and internationally if he didn't follow through on his threats and retreated in the face of the West. Obviously Russia can't be allowed to win. So it has to be a negotiated end, and that means both sides get less than what they want.

It's gone beyond defending the Ukrainian homeland now. It's a case of the Ukraine will never win this war. Giving them more arms will just push Russia into bombing the Ukraine back into the 18th century.

[Jampie]

It's gone beyond defending the Ukrainian homeland now. It's a case of the Ukraine will never win this war. Giving them more arms will just push Russia into bombing the Ukraine back into the 18th century.

Russia will never win the war at the rate they're going either. At their present rate of advance they'll be at Kyiv again in a decade or two. Putin is not immortal, and whoever replaces him might be smart enough to blame the whole idea on Putin and pull out in exchange for sanctions lifting.

Handing Putin the land he's stolen so far is a victory for him (pyrrhic, likely, but still), and will encourage future adventures from him, his eventual Russian replacement, and other dictators. I don't think that's a good option. Add onto that the fact that he has broken numerous international agreements and commitments and so no ceasefire terms he signs can be trusted...

As long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight on, we should be supporting them, and we should be doing a much better job of it than we have to date.

[Lullapie]

Russia will never win the war at the rate they're going either. At their present rate of advance they'll be at Kyiv again in a decade or two. Putin is not immortal, and whoever replaces him might be smart enough to blame the whole idea on Putin and pull out in exchange for sanctions lifting.

Handing Putin the land he's stolen so far is a victory for him (pyrrhic, likely, but still), and will encourage future adventures from him, his eventual Russian replacement, and other dictators. I don't think that's a good option. Add onto that the fact that he has broken numerous international agreements and commitments and so no ceasefire terms he signs can be trusted...

As long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight on, we should be supporting them, and we should be doing a much better job of it than we have to date.

Trump will say to Ukraine, it's better to give to Russia what they've taken and get a ceasefire than have the risk of Ukraine being laid to waste. Their choice is do that, or keep fighting Putin without any US funding or military support.

One of us will be right.

[i961pie]

There's a saying in New Zealand that goes 'sometimes you have to suck the kumara'. It's been corrupted over the years to mean that you have to take an unpalatable step to bring an end to something that is dragging on.

Ok so Ukraine gives up land, are they then free to join the EU or NATO or does Russia dictate that also.
Ukraine is a sovereign country. I can see resistance movements forming because this is what happens when land is lost. Which would give Putin an excuse to move further into Ukraine.

[drillerpie]

I'm not sure the analogy works. Of course going round to your mate's house to help keep invaders at bay isn't escalation, it's defending your property. But if your mate lent you his pickup truck and drove it round to the attackers' house and smashed their windows, that would be escalation.

So in your mind, the answer to war is more war. I understand, but I don't agree. If you have one side that is an aggressor and another side that is defending its territory, that's one thing. But if you have two sides that are actively raising the stakes, where does it end? It has to end somewhere. I can't see Russia backing down - Putin's whole strong-man persona would fall apart both domestically and internationally if he didn't follow through on his threats and retreated in the face of the West. Obviously Russia can't be allowed to win. So it has to be a negotiated end, and that means both sides get less than what they want.

Ok so to try and stay with the same analogy, if there were people coming to your house and doing the things I described every day and night for 3 years, you could decide to find out where they live and go round there with a truck full of mates to dissuade them. I don't think that's escalation but you do - fair enough.

By your logic though, when the RAF was carrying out bombing raids on Germany to reduce their military capacity during the blitz, the UK was actually escalating the conflict.

During that time there was an isolationist mood in the US (funnily enough with a popular movement called America First too) and they cared as much about the UK getting levelled as some MAGA people care about Ukraine getting levelled now. That didn't lead to less war.

Putin wants to restore the Russian empire and he sees Ukraine and Belarus as a big part of that. He has effectively taken Belarus already by sending thousands of riot police and FSB to prop up the dictator there after he lost an election, and he tried to take Ukraine by force. Any ceasefire will just be an opportunity to replenish his forces and try to make Ukraine a non-viable country before starting round 2 in a few years. Also China will see that if you invade another country, basically you get put on the naughty step for a couple of years but then people get bored and you can keep what you took. I really do think that any alternative here leads to more war in the future.