Russia is commiting genocide but oh there will b e peace if Ukraine gets split in half.
Should Narva be Russian?
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Should Narva be Russian?
Plus Ukraine already was partitioned and it led to the largest war in Europe since 1945.
And the peace will stop that.
Yeah, giving in to Russia's demands will be a recipe for peace... like when the Sudetenland was conceded to Nazi Germany..
So you are then appeasing a dictator commiting genocide, a dictator that does not believe Ukraine should exist.
So Ukraine is split in half, Russia controls donbas does it keep Kherson?
So the millions of people in these areas now have to accept Russian control, despite considerable portions not wanting that prior to the war let alone after what is most certainly genocide.
Russia get rewarded, Ukraine get shafted. Peace begins, then Russia decides it likes the thought of Kharkiv & Odesa. Couple of false flags justifies it and the war continues once more..
No, Russia need to piss off back to their own borders. That simple.
Saving lives is the reward.
Indeed. Its basically a red carpet invitation for Putin to progress into invading Europe.
Thats if you think Putin will stop there..
Peace and love will make him stop. Its worth trying.
How?
First, Putin has stated that Ukraine has no right to exist. How does splitting Ukraine into two states change that?
Second, there is no social division between eastern and western Ukraine that suggests splitting the country in two. Where would you draw the border? At the Dniepro? What's your justification for putting Kharkiv with the Donbas rather than Kyiv? You can state the language division, but language isn't necessarily what builds unity or identity, or the inverse. It's too simplistic, especially since everything that's happening to Ukraine is currently drawing its regions much closer together.
Third, where does this put the Donbas anyway? Are you suggesting a division into three? (west, east, Donbas) Or are you putting the Donbas with the east? If so, are you expecting Russia to agree to let go of the Donbas so it can join the new country of East Ukraine?
Fourth, if all the works, why would anyone expect Russia to leave the country alone, and not attack and conquer East Ukraine first, and West Ukraine a few years after?
Finally, it's all very nice to blame people for confusing loyalty to their country with loyalty to their govenrment, but how does splitting up the country fix that?
I just don't see how what you're proposing solves anything. It seems like something random you'd impose upon Ukraine, akin to how European colonial powers carved up Africa and the Middle East. I don't think anyone would call that a success story.
What evidence do you have that ending the war will end the genocide?
Speaking of peace...
You know that Putin will back out of a negotiated peace settlement?
Yes. We know he will because he has already ignored previous agreements (Budapest 94, Minsk 2015 etc).
Do we then keep fighting ?
We are sure Russia will return to pre invasion borders?
EDIT:
My point is we need to try to negotiate for peace. Not to be held hostage by the past.
Human life is worth the effort.
What I suggested may not be the ideal solution.
But we must try.
Ukraine is fighting and it’s their right to keep doing so.
And you’ve yet to say how peace will stop genocide.
Putin has shown zero inclination to negotiate. His demands involve the wholesale dismantling of a democratic nation.
If there was any indication the Putin regime were serious about peace I would support negotiations wholeheartedly.
In the event we are stuck in a zero sum game with a dictator who has violated the sovereignty of a number of nations, including the UK, and who wants to rebuild an empire.
If Western Europe is serious about democracy, we arm Ukraine and respect their sovereignty. If Ukraine wants a negotiated peace, we support them. We don't dismember them in the hope that rewarding a dictator will end well.
I'd nominate Macron to lead this effort since he has been in regular communication with Putin
Very effeminate handshake there.I'd nominate Macron to lead this effort since he has been in regular communication with Putin
Suitably absurd to the original proposition
Chamberlain gets a lot of stick, and rightly so, but Hitler was ready to start a world war over the Sudetanland and blinked first.
The extra year Chamberlain bought the UK allowed us to develop radar and also modernised our air force further, crucial factors in 1940.
I don't blame him for appeasement. He was too old to fight in 14-18 and lost close family members, vowing never to have that happen again.
The extra year Chamberlain bought the UK allowed us to develop radar and also modernised our air force further, crucial factors in 1940.
I don't blame him for appeasement. He was too old to fight in 14-18 and lost close family members, vowing never to have that happen again.
Have you seen Munich - The Edge of War ? Good film on Netflix now. Jeremy Irons as Chamberlain is fantastic.
This is what I posted.
My point is we need to try to negotiate for peace. Not to be held hostage by the past.
Human life is worth the effort.
What I suggested may not be the ideal solution.
But we must try.
Yeah, it's nice. Everything the main characters do is fiction (from what I read), but it's a good film.
It actually supports what @Frosty was saying just above though: that the extra year Chamberlain bought helped the UK get ready for the war, and that Chamberlain had that in mind when creating the agreement.
I did see the film - as said, a good but fictional portrayal.
There's a great documentary by David Reynolds on the Munich crisis which is worth a watch:
Also as good as Jeremy Irons is as an actor, I still cannot get past the fact he was concerned that legalising same-sex marriage in the UK would mean he could marry his son.
I didn't know about the Jeremy Irons bit. What a weirdo. Still a very good actor though.
Peace would we great but it has to be a stable peace. Better a permanent peace on Ukrainian terms than a temporary one on Russian terms.
Fully agree.
It has to be a lasting peace.
I hear rumblings that the war will be ending this month. I pray so.
Its not just Ukraine.
The whole world has suffered enough because of this.
Public opinions translates into elections, both Bush and Blair were reelected. A disgrace of the people of these countries.
The problem with this is that the parties in opposition at the time of the election both supported the war too, and those parties were the alternative at those re-elections.
In fact, the Tories were far more in support of the war than Labour was. If the Tories had voted against the war, the motion would not have been carried and the UK would not have been involved (such was the scale of the Labour rebellion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq
If the UK had defeated Blair and elected a Tory Government in 2005, we would have rewarded a party for their unanimous support of the war.
Who is "we"? Are you doing any fighting yourself? If you are, you can give up.
But let the Ukrainians decide if they will give up or not. It not for you to decide for them.
I saw photos of protestors in DRC holding posters of “Putin - please help us”. It’s weird to see black Africans cheering Europe’s last empire which is built on white supremacism and has caused a massive spike in food prizes. As @TMDaines says, it must be truly grim in DRC.
The sheer delusion in megalomania and longing for the past is just ridiculous with those guys. Go figure what Russian and Chinese politicians drink or smoke these days because that's the very same mindset when it comes to hawkishness regarding disputed lands.
Yep, it's very weird even though the picture is clear.
It's not just that the situation is bad though. Countries all over Africa, and no doubt the Middle East too, mistrust the west after centuries of (largely ongoing) exploitation. They haven't yet seen how they're going to be / getting exploited by the likes of China and Russia whereas they've had centuries for the penny to drop with Europe and the US.
Yes, fair point. I understand the Chinese attraction (new infrastructure) but I’m not sure what Russia brings to the party other than murderous mercenaries like in Mali.
Disinformation mainly. Criticising and standing up to the west is always going to make you popular until they realise you're as bad or worse.
It's also worth noting that, according to Wiki, "Only eleven African states are listed as 'free' under the Freedom Index; Botswana, Mauritius, Cape Verde, Senegal, Tunisia, Ghana, Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, Namibia, South Africa, and Benin."
That's 11 out of 54 nations in Africa, which means that a big majority of African governments don't much care about Russia's attacks on freedom and democracy, and some may even support those attacks.
I don't think bashing African countries and its citizens that may have pro-Russian views is the right way to go for this thread. At the end of the day, these people have a fraction of the resources and opportunities available to us in the West (not to mention the abuse perpetrated on the continent by European countries). In many respects, these folks are victims too and are just flocking to the place where they are finding opportunities. The way to change this is to extend more support to these countries.