Author Topic: No appeasement  (Read 799 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jay

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 687
  • -Receive: 259
  • Posts: 614
No appeasement
« on: 09:46 15-Jan-2017 »
  As the article says "appeasement has never worked" -- a theme I have written about.

We are about to enter a most important time for Ukraine and it's citizens and supporters need a clear idea of what is acceptable-- and practical.

This quote sums it up nicely .

"Ukraine?s realism should consist not in kneeling before the Kremlin but in becoming stronger in the face of aggression: further bolstering its military, building a sustainable economic base for the war effort through free-market reforms, introducing the rule of law, and driving out a corrupt, irresponsible and traitorous elite."

No appeasement



In late 2013, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych tried to crush Ukrainians? dream of joining the civilized world by backing out of an association deal with the European Union. Since then, Ukrainians have been fighting for their European dream, first on the barricades in Kyiv, and then on the war front in the Donbas.

The war with Russia is not just about the technicalities of the association agreement. It is about a civilizational choice between being part of a murderous totalitarian empire, or part of the free world.

Three years after Yanukovych?s downfall, billionaire oligarch Victor Pinchuk is proposing that Ukraine abandon its dream and drop plans to join NATO and the European Union. He says that Ukraine should appease the aggressor by recognizing its annexation of Crimea de facto, if not de jure, and agreeing to elections in the Russian-occupied Donbas, which would legitimize the Kremlin?s puppets there.

Pinchuk?s plan is not just a betrayal of those whose blood was spilled during the EuroMaidan Revolution of 2013-14 and the 10,000 who lost their lives in the war instigated by Russia. It is also utterly naive and illogical, despite its professed pragmatism and realism.

First: any deal with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, a cynical and shameless liar, is not worth the paper it is written on. No amount of concessions or agreements will guarantee that Russia will cease its war against Ukraine and will not proceed to grab another piece of Ukrainian territory.

Second: as Benjamin Franklin said, those who sacrifice liberty for security will have neither. Abandoning the principles of Ukraine?s territorial integrity and its uncompromising opposition to Russian aggression for the sake of pragmatic considerations entails the nation becoming morally bankrupt.

And if Ukraine gives up its moral integrity, it will only invite more bullying from the Kremlin.

Historically, appeasement has never worked.

Third: Ukraine?s realism should consist not in kneeling before the Kremlin but in becoming stronger in the face of aggression: further bolstering its military, building a sustainable economic base for the war effort through free-market reforms, introducing the rule of law, and driving out a corrupt, irresponsible and traitorous elite.

When Ukraine becomes stronger, it will not have to bow either to Putin or to incoming U.S. President Donald Trump. Neither will it have to beg for admission to the free world ? it will have earned a place by right.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Online frank1010

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 178
  • -Receive: 251
  • Posts: 748
  • I'm new here - please be gentle with me!!
Re: No appeasement
« Reply #1 on: 11:15 15-Jan-2017 »
Hello Jay, whilst I agree that appeasement has never worked, it should also be mentioned that not everything - particularly in politics - is black and white.  Yes Russia is and was a murderous and totalitarian regime when is comes to spreading its own ideology. But isn't the US quite similar? Lets lookmat the past. The US, with the help of its secret service and military ressources,  has installed puppet regimes in South America which have committed outrageous attrocities. Same in Iran for example. The US based on fake arguments has militarily invaded Irak (I am not saying that Sadam Hussein was a good guy!) With no legal authorisarion. What I am trying to say is who defines what is right and who is wrong? It is a systematic or ideologic question, the US are saying " we are right". And Russia, China and alike also say "we are right". It is only a matter of perspective which is defined by the people. And this perspective can change quickly (as you can see with the election of a certain Donald Dumb).

Please don't get me wrong, i 100% agree - from my perspective and based on my education and life - that Russia is an evil and murderous empire. But from another perspective, the US are not much different. It is all about gaining influence, control and spreading the own ideology.

What is presently happening shows a very poor attitude of the west (including the US). At first the west encourages Ukraine on its way towards freedom and the western world. Russia by means of covert and hybrid war interfers and won't let go so easily and in view of the russian bullying the west suddenly only half heartedly supports Ukraine with monetary gifts. But does not support and help Ukraine to defend itself against this agression (by means of arms supply). This is in my opinion a  rather hypocritic approach.

But world politics in many cases is not just black and white ....

Online sosednik

  • Expat XO
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 77
  • -Receive: 191
  • Posts: 306
  • Gender: Male
  • Героям слава! Смерть ворогам!
Appeasement and Justice
« Reply #2 on: 17:08 15-Jan-2017 »
I think about these questions a lot, and they are deeply important to me.  For what it's worth, my perspectives:

1.  "Appeasement has never worked"  --  While I sympathize with the sentiment, it is factually incorrect.  "Never" is a very strong word, and rarely tells the truth concerning the complexities of life.  Appeasement means giving an aggressive party some of what they demand, and it has been practical and functional in many times and circumstances.  Aside from "unconditional surrender" (which is EXTREMELY rare in history), many conflicts have come to a stable end with the help of some degree of appeasement.

That being said, appeasement of Russia's murderous rape and pillage is a dreadful course.  I shall warn against it, as long as there is any viable alternative.  While it's foolish to say that Putin is "like" Hitler, his conduct towards Russia's neighbors has very sharp parallels to Hitler's policy in the late 1930s.  The appetite grows with the eating:  Putin, not content to rule the largest state on Earth, will take more and more if he is allowed.

When the mob comes to burn down your home, what compromise are you supposed to make?  Give them consent to burn half?  Only the roof, but leave the walls?  Appeasing Putin will lead to even worse calamities.

2.  "the US are not much different [from Putin's Russia]"  ?  With great respect to Frank, this is Dead Wrong.  Has the US committed grave and unforgivable sins against other states?  Yes, absolutely.  Is there overlap between US crimes and Russian crimes?  Without doubt.

Are the US and Russia not much different?  No, no, no, no, a thousand times no!!!!

Not to excuse US crimes, I observe that the most horrible interventions in Latin America took place more than a generation ago, and do not reflect present US policy.  I hope (and have some reason to believe) that my country has undergone some moral maturation, and that an administration attempting anything like the catastrophic 1973 coup in Chile would be opposed with such vehemence that it would reap a harvest political humiliation and disgrace.

By contrast, the many of the people behind Russia's post-Afghanistan aggressions (including war in the Caucasus which probably slaughtered more than one hundred thousand non-combatants) are not only still living ... they are STILL RUNNING THE COUNTRY.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is to my mind a clear-cut war crime by the standards applied in the first Nuremberg tribunal.  Those responsible should, by Nuremberg precedent, be liable to hanging by the neck until dead.

That being said, this illegal invasion:
  • made harm to civilians by error and oversight, but never by policy
  • was conducted without spoliation (i.e., removal or appropriation by the invaders of Iraq's very considerable wealth)
  • was by design and in practice temporary
  • by design and in practice ended with the restoration of sovereignty to the population of Iraq over its whole integral territory and all its resources
I invite comparison of this record, to that of the Russian empire at any moment in its long, blood-soaked history.

The US has many times relinquished  --  on its own initiative, without much external pressure  --  its occupation of the territory of other states, often leaving the populace with rights and justice, and on a path toward material prosperity, they could hardly dreamt of before the combat began.  Not always!  But often.

How many times has Russia done so?  How many countries other than the US have achieved such a record?

The US is not much different from Russia?  Really??? SERIOUSLY?????
« Last Edit: 23:31 15-Jan-2017 by sosednik »

Online David Rochlin

  • Vip Lounge member
  • I live here
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 817
  • -Receive: 1161
  • Posts: 6315
  • Gender: Male
  • Statue of the Motherland
Re: No appeasement
« Reply #3 on: 20:45 15-Jan-2017 »
Part of the rationale of the US and other Western countries reluctance to get involved in Ukraine is that to the US at least, victory is not a Ukraine where the cities look like Aleppo, or Donetsk Airport, or Nagasaki.  And so, Western countries are reluctant to invest in such an outcome, even if that outcome is inevitable, whether Ukraine gets real military support or not.  Consequently, merely accepting destruction of Ukraine as an outcome, and actually spending money, providing weapons and owning destruction of Ukraine as an outcome, are very different policy considerations. 

Of course taking no substantive action is also a  Western policy that has already achieved a negative outcome in Ukraine and Syria.  But, Western countries achieved that at little political cost, (although Merkle and Hollande may eventually pay a price,) and few military casualties, with the economic cost mostly indirect, i.e. the refugee crisis.
« Last Edit: 22:38 15-Jan-2017 by David Rochlin »

Offline Jay

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 687
  • -Receive: 259
  • Posts: 614
Re: No appeasement
« Reply #4 on: 07:38 16-Jan-2017 »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Please don't get me wrong, i 100% agree - from my perspective and based on my education and life - that Russia is an evil and murderous empire. But from another perspective, the US are not much different. It is all about gaining influence, control and spreading the own ideology.
.

But world politics in many cases is not just black and white ....

It is not reasonable to put US and Russia in the same category.
Note-I am not American - and have no problem in criticising US.The comparison with previous US actions anywhere is not relevant. In effect --you are saying the US did abc  so Russia is justified to do ABC all the way to Z  because of an historic US action somewhere. Not logical.
Here --- we are talking about Ukraine --not Iraq,not Syria,not Yemen,not Israel etc

Russia has no right to invade any part of Ukraine, no right to interfere and attempt to control in any way -- for any reason. FULL STOP


Online frank1010

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 178
  • -Receive: 251
  • Posts: 748
  • I'm new here - please be gentle with me!!
Re: No appeasement
« Reply #5 on: 09:14 16-Jan-2017 »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Please don't get me wrong, i 100% agree - from my perspective and based on my education and life - that Russia is an evil and murderous empire. But from another perspective, the US are not much different. It is all about gaining influence, control and spreading the own ideology.
.

But world politics in many cases is not just black and white ....

It is not reasonable to put US and Russia in the same category.
Note-I am not American - and have no problem in criticising US.The comparison with previous US actions anywhere is not relevant. In effect --you are saying the US did abc  so Russia is justified to do ABC all the way to Z  because of an historic US action somewhere. Not logical.
Here --- we are talking about Ukraine --not Iraq,not Syria,not Yemen,not Israel etc

Russia has no right to invade any part of Ukraine, no right to interfere and attempt to control in any way -- for any reason. FULL STOP

Hello Jay, nowhere did I say that Russia is justified to do something because the US did the same! I am just saying that alle superpowers (US, Russia, China) violate international law and human rights and that this is not something exclusive to Russia. It is a matter of legitimacy, somebody violating international law and human rights should not point the finger at somebody else for the same violation. I just said world politics is black and white (like we are the good and you are the bad ...). Russia is evil and murderous, no doubt about that! But is the US or China so much different? The political system is different, yes. The freedom for the individual is different, yes. The possibilities for the individual are different, yes. The freedom to express yourself is different, yes. The freedom of press is different, yes. But on the other side there are many similarities ....

Online sosednik

  • Expat XO
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 77
  • -Receive: 191
  • Posts: 306
  • Gender: Male
  • Героям слава! Смерть ворогам!
Russian Murderers
« Reply #6 on: 19:37 16-Jan-2017 »
My fiancee just got word that a man she knew was blown up in the ATO (not crystal clear, but probably a land mine).  He was a father of young children.

What I didn't express clearly in my post above, is that for a weak party to appease can be a life-saving measure.  If Trump gets his way, Ukraine may be left on its own.  In such case, I wouldn't criticize Ukraine for sacrificing territory in an effort to save itself.  [Whether Ukraine would survive such a move, I don't predict.]

But for the strong to practice appeasement -- as western Europe did at Munich in 1938, and the US and Europe are now doing with Ukraine -- has no excuse.  It is both dishonorable, and sure to cost far more in blood and treasure than was supposedly "spared".

The German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte is quoted thus:

"A cowardly surrender will not save you from destruction!  You will get from it only a short respite for a dishonored existence."
« Last Edit: 20:12 16-Jan-2017 by sosednik »

Online sosednik

  • Expat XO
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 77
  • -Receive: 191
  • Posts: 306
  • Gender: Male
  • Героям слава! Смерть ворогам!
A Big Heaping Dose of Appeasement, Ready to be Served
« Reply #7 on: 20:50 27-Jan-2017 »
27 January 2017, Washington Post:

Quote
U.S sanctions against Russia will be "under consideration" when President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold their first official conversation on Saturday, according to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway.

Asked whether sanctions imposed by the Obama administration for Russian interference in the U.S. election and intervention in the Ukraine would be on the table in a scheduled call between the two, Conway said on Fox that "all that is under consideration ... And if another nation that has considerable resources wishes to join together with the United States of America to try to defeat and eradicate radical Islamic terrorism, then we're listening.

Trump is so desperate to sell Ukraine down the river, he is nearly wetting his pants.  Less than ten days after becoming president, he wants to reward Putin for invading Ukraine and seizing its territory.  "Here, Vlad, keep your stolen goods and your murderous war.  We won't oppose you in any way!"

By the way, Russia's "contribution" to the fight against ISIS is likely to be worthless (or even worse, make matters more difficult than before).

Online David Rochlin

  • Vip Lounge member
  • I live here
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 817
  • -Receive: 1161
  • Posts: 6315
  • Gender: Male
  • Statue of the Motherland
Re: No appeasement
« Reply #8 on: 21:14 27-Jan-2017 »
In the Syria order, Trump announced that he would create "Safe Zones" in Syria.  That might conflict with Russian opposition to the zones, and put American pilots where they will be well within the control areas of some of Russia's most advanced anti-aircraft radars.