R_P wrote:
And who's appeasement of the annexation of Crimea was the initial one. Fuzzy logic R_P.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Treason! Keep going...

 haresfur wrote:
I believe I pointed out that the US appeases too. In the end. Never initially, of course.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
+1

 haresfur wrote:

+1

 R_P wrote:
Oh, you huff and puff quite a lot R_P. No, my point is (from my perspective) your cringeworthy disregard for the perspective of former satellite states of the Soviet Union that have suffered brutally from Russian imperialism over the years and the fact that you have pushed a Russian-friendly agenda the whole time. This makes you a friend of Russian mob FSB rule and sets you against the people. I really don't know how you square this with any kind of left-wing ideals. Just because Russia is NOT AMERICA, doesn't make them paragons of virtue. It seems your vitriolic distaste for U.S. expansionism/hegemony makes you wilfully blind to the atrocities of other nations with imperialist ambitions.

 R_P wrote:

Obama was on the receiving end when he appeased Russia by not reacting when they Annexed Crimea. That didn't work out well for Ukrainians. How convenient that you are happy to ignore recent history.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
You're either with us or with (the enemy du jour)...

Maybe I should huff and puff more too.

 Lazy8 wrote:
Maximalist zero-sum nonsense. Cf. especially : a policy of appeasing an enemy or potential aggressor by making concessions

Principled! "We don't negotiate with terrorists." "We don't cut and run." "I never settle."

And sometimes it might not work. Neither the alliance nor the meddling.

The US loves and demands deference/appeasement, just not when it's on the receiving end.

 Lazy8 wrote:

:wry smile emoticon:  I'd also expect the Ukrainians to keep fighting no matter if the U.S. continues to keep providing military aid or not. There has simply been too much shit gone down for the Ukrainians to stop now. So RP's whole line of argument is redundant - unless of course it's true intention is to favour Russia at the cost of Ukraine - something he doesn't have the balls to say openly, because that would be (choke) imperialism.

 R_P wrote:
Yes, you're catching on. That is pretty much the definition of appeasement.

At every juncture in this war (and even in the post following this one) you've posted cut&paste manifestos declaring that resistance is futile, the outcome is inevitable, and that Ukraine (and the rest of the world) should just bargain with Russia over what's left of Ukraine and its sovereignty. That would indeed be surrender (on Ukraine's part) and appeasement (on its allies').


That asymmetry is why small countries try to have alliances: to protect them from big, aggressive countries. Sometimes it even works.

And maybe you should look into getting a crystal ball. If I had a nickel for every prediction of Ukraine's imminent destruction you've posted I could buy you one.

Basic asymmetry:
Weary Soldiers, Unreliable Munitions: Ukraine’s Many Challenges

“We’re trading our people for their people, and they have more people and equipment,” said one Ukrainian commander whose platoon has suffered around heavy casualties since Russia launched its full-scale invasion last year.

 Lazy8 wrote:
I've read it. For one, the word surrender isn't in there. Maybe you equate that with negotiations? Appppeeasement!

You guessed wrongly, but clever boy. There's a basic asymmetry between the primary parties. It may be a failure now, but it can change too. I have no crystal ball here.

 R_P wrote:
You should really read the articles you post links to.


"Optimistic" depends on which side you're rooting for, I guess. We're halfway thru the summer, a little early to declare the counteroffensive a failure.

 Lazy8 wrote:
They didn't lose because it's not over. Not sure who's making those arguments.

There's they will be victorious and they will lose.

Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia

When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.

They haven’t.

Hopium. Stalemate seems a little optimistic too.

 R_P wrote:
They didn't lose either, but at least the argument seems to have shifted from they're losing, they should surrender to they aren't winning fast enough, they should surrender.

 Lazy8 wrote:
They didn't get far that time either.

Too lazy to look up/link all those "Russians running out of stuff" posts, but...

 R_P wrote:
Mark your words? Again?

China secretly sends enough non-lethal gear to Russia to equip an army.

Why Ukraine’s counter-offensive is failing
Diplomacy is more important than ever as Kyiv simply doesn’t have the human resources or physical infrastructure to achieve its goals.

Last March, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that as a result of significant Western support, the Ukrainian military’s spring offensive had “a very good chance for success.” Former Chief of the British General Staff, General Richard Dannatt, went so far as to suggest that Ukraine’s offensive would be so successful that Putin “may be swept out of the Kremlin” as a result.

Combat reality, however, has now swept away those optimistic claims and exposed the harsh truth: Ukraine is unlikely to militarily evict Russia out of its territory, no matter how many men they feed into battle.

As unpalatable as it is for all supporters of Ukraine, the most prudent course for Zelensky may now be to seek a negotiated settlement that preserves as much freedom and territory as possible for Kyiv. Ending the war now would end the deaths and injuries for tens of thousands of Ukraine’s brave and heroic fighters — men and women whom Kyiv will need to rebuild their country once the war ends.

The same month that Austin was claiming Ukraine had “a very good chance” to defeat Russia in Kyiv’s spring offensive, I wrote that embracing the concept “that Russia is going to lose the war could leave the West to be caught off guard if the Ukrainian offensive fails to materially degrade Russian positions.” One month before the start of the offensive, I explained the very practical reasons why the Ukrainian attack would almost certainly fail to achieve even modest gains.

To succeed in its operation to cut the Russian land bridge to Crimea, I wrote that Ukrainian troops would have to attack through multiple belts of elaborate Russian defenses “with limited offensive air power, limited air defense, insufficient quantities of artillery shells, and a force that is equipped with a hodgepodge of modern and antiquated armor — staffed by a mix of conscripts with no combat experience and some officers and men with basic training by NATO instructors.”

All of those factors have now predictably conspired to blunt Kyiv’s offensive, failing after six weeks of effort to even penetrate the first belt of the main Russian defensive lines. (...)

On Monday, Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said that Ukraine has “the combat power to be successful on the battlefield. They have what it needs to be successful in the counteroffensive.” Such optimism is grossly out of kilter with combat realities. The United States should stop making such plainly inaccurate statements and instead start to put real diplomatic efforts into ending this war. (...)