I donât live in La La Land where we can avoid negative consequences of this. It isnât a case like youâve made out that we get peace and people donât die, the war would likely be moved a few years down the road and to a different geography.
I said it is up to Ukraine to decide when to negotiate (unless Putin escalates to Nukes before then) and it is not up to the West to tell them to or cut them off.
If Ukraine goes for peace, unfortunately there will be continued negative consequences. Russia cannot be let back in the full trading world with Putin and the path theyâve gone on. That will result in them being isolated for years more.
Endgame here is that eventually Russia will have to give up their delusions on their place in the world. If Russia uses nukes, personally Iâd be happy for NATO to take them out to expedite that. Otherwise it will either be Russians figuring this out for themselves in the short term or a slow burn process.
Youre full of hypotheticals when we have years of factual actions on record that backs up my point. From Vietnam to central and south America to Iraq and Afghanistan⌠How many murdered for American imperialism? But yeah, letâs engage in whstaboutery so Tim can continue to evade admitting that the US have and continue to play a part in creating the conflict and profiting from it.
Allowing Russia a clean go at Ukraine is imperialism.
The US would be subject to all manner of criticism if they let Putin at it and went against China, as this alternative has been suggested.
You use the word imperialism continually. The US is not a perfect country but it is the global leader- there will always be global leaders so you need to grow up a bit and accept reality. Any way global conflicts go will be an up or a down for them, so you can take any position you like on them to fit into your own narrative.
If the US didnât go for the domino theory approach that led to the likes of Vietnam, they likely would have gone for a pre WW1 style worldview. That is to stay off their patch (Monroe doctrine) and we donât mind what you do in other countries. You can argue thatâs âimperialismâ.
Thatâs the problem with that word, itâs a dullard statement that can be attributed to any scenario where you have a significant country.
You can criticise the US for any of their foreign policy positions, but it is incredibly childish and dull to thrown the imperialism line out in the context of the United States now.
You seem to be presenting the only options as peace talks now or total destruction of Russia. I wouldnât be an expert on how conflicts usually end but thereâs lots of other ways than that Iâd say. Currently Russia is not open to peace and Ukraine doesnât want to have peace talks with them. Ukraine has said that if they called a ceasefire and had talks with Russia, Russia would only use the time to re-arm and reorganise (in so far as thatâs a thing they can do) and come back again. Thatâs a fair assessment Iâd say.
Ah youâre just making up shit I supposedly said now. Nobody thinks thereâll be no negative consequences to any scenario here. Thereâs no winners in this, none at all. I agree Russia will be out in the cold for many years to come. Youâve outlined some consequences of this conflict but you havenât said how you think this conflict will end.
Itâs very strange that anyone talking about peace is attacked and called a conspiracy theorist or a Russian shill. Itâs a strange world we live in for sure.
Itâs ideology. That ideology is control and power and ultimately profit. Find a word you feel comfortable with but thatâs US foreign policy.
When they enter a country , through military or other means, and tear its infrastructure apart and hand it to American corporate interests to profit from - what do we call this? Freedom?
The US spent almost a trillion dollars âsavingâ the world from an evil dictator in Iraq, and after all the ârebuildingâ was complete walked away having obliterated a country and hundreds of thousands of itâs inhabitants. Very few in the west batted an eyelid. Libya was the richest country in Africa and NATO (supposedly a defensive peacekeeping force) bombed it back to the stone ages in 2011. Nobody in the west gave a shit.
But we should trust those same neocons responsible for these and other atrocities who are still running the State Department in Washington to do the right thing.
WWII ended with Germany and Japan demilitarised after both been resolutely defeated. Both subsequently came back into the world order as great trading nations.
Of course when WWII ended, that also meant that Germany was divided with one part ruled by an authoritarian regime that was a quasi puppet state for a despot regime in the Soviet Union. It took decades for reunification and a âcured Germany.â
Nothing is ever perfect in resolution.
But ultimately Russia will have to come to heel. We can try to keep a lid on these things for time- North Korea is basically the big global one on this front but something will shift eventually. With Russia (and their delusions of their role in the world) a lid was kept for years, trying to bring them into the trading order (the German approach) but a line was crossed with the invasion of Ukraine. Thatâs reality unfortunately.
We canât suggest at all that they are part of the equation in Ukraine. We all know Russia are solely to blame for their actions but to suggest there is a proxy war ongoing means youre a Putin stooge.
Every country has a worldview. The Irish one is an internationalist one hoping we can all be friends. We all have relative power to exert our worldview.
The US just has more power than most and has a worldview. The word imperialism is childish though, the US gave up power in bringing China into the international order- all to bring forward their worldview. The US and China are now the only two countries with a tangible interest in pretty much any country in the world. So by exerting their influence, you can call that imperialism- the US would he practically exerting influence in Eastern Europe by letting Russia at it. They would be leaving their military partners in the East to go and swing for their broader interests (now to take on China)- thus you could call it imperialism. Itâs a dead end term with regards to the US and China, it absolutely has applicability in terms of Russia though.
Nope youâre the one that is adding the now caveat. The most common way conflicts come to an end is total destruction or peace, maybe there are others Iâm not thinking of. Maybe now is not the time but the fact that no major countries are talking about it apart from China I find strange.
I think itâs pretty clear why no one is talking peace, right? There doesnât seem to be any credible prospect of peace right now. Russia doesnât want peace.
I donât really understand how you see this mate. Can you explain how the US could make the peace come about? What would the deal be? What else could the US do to put pressure on Russia to want peace?