War, what is it good for?

[CaptainFritz28]

Why hasn't the USA/GB/Fr made a peace deal with Nazi-Germany, via diplomatic means?

I know that there were "some minor appeasement attempts" (like just giving numerous countries to nazi-germany), but surely, you could have done better.

The Allies never had a good chance of winning, and even if they had, at what cost? Millions of innocent people dead, just because you were too proud to engage in diplomacy.

And it is so easy to make diplomacy with the Führer: his personal preferences are known, and if he wants his ass kissed, or some Jews "eliminated", it is surely to much of a sacrifice to do so. USA/GB/FR just have to accept that they are just small countries in a big world, who can not always get what they want, especially when dealing with all-mighty nazi-germany ...

There were plenty of good opportunities to broker peace, and the Nazis, who are known to be peace-loving people, would have been glad to make peace. You just should have tried harder, you just should not have let so many opportunities pass ...

(this is obviously satire)

The implication of the satire, and its comparison to the modern day, seems to be that you think we ought to go to war with Russia?

[Klaus klauts]

I hope, that a war with Russia is avoidable, first and foremost because I am not interested in witnessing a war first-hand.

For the very same reason, We have to prepare for a war -- and if some Russian fighter jet "accidentely crosses the border", it has to be shot down. This may very well lead to war, but I think, that in this situation, this would rather prevent a war, than the alternative.

After all, a war against Russia is very unnecessary. Russia has already enough on its plate in Ukraine, and if we finally decided to support Ukraine in the way it deserves, there is no need for war against Russia for it to be annihilated or at least damaged in large parts.

War is, after all, a political instrument. It is wise to not use it any times one does not like the nose on the face of the enemy, but putting it off the table completely comes with great risks also.

[Klaus klauts]

Additionally, it is misleading to ask: "Do we want war?"

It is quite clear, that none of the EU-countries want war.

They have tried for decades to communicate with Russia, to establish longstanding peace.

But you can ignore words without repercussions, so Russia ignored those words.

But, if Russia comes now to us, and attacks us, one can not simply ignore it. One has to pay a huge price, regardlessly what option is chosen.

So you should ask the question: "Does Russia want war?"

And the answer is "YES!!!"

We have to face this reality, that, if the Ukraine-war does not go in favour of Ukraine, there will definitely be another war with Russia. Anything else would be self-betrayel.

We also have to accept, that the US wants to ally with authoritarian regimes. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it is probably a duck. There will be no US-Ukarine deal. The US will retreat out of Nato. And the USA retreating out of NATO will bring great instability to it -- a good opportunity for Russia to attack.

We have to face the grim consequences of Trumps actions.

[Octavious]

You claim there was an early window for negotiation—what evidence do you have that Russia was willing to stop at that point? Every time Ukraine pushed back Russian advances, Moscow escalated. Why do you assume they would have stopped if Ukraine just "accepted" losing territory? It certainly didn't work in 2014

Yes it did. There was no major fighting for nearly a decade. If your only yardstick for the success of a peace deal is permanent peace then there have been no successful peace negotiations in human history.

What kind of "peace" would Ukraine have achieved by conceding the occupied territories early? How would rewarding Russia with land for its invasion have deterred future aggression, rather than encouraging it, if their primary war aim was regime change in Kyiv?

Russia took a hefty beating early on and in full view of the world retreated across half of Ukraine. They were firmly on the back foot and their government was looking wobbly. There was a great opportunity to push for peace, but instead we opted for the "total victory" crap that achieved nothing except for death, destruction and misery for years.

You frame Ukraine’s resistance as "achieving nothing but death and destruction"—so what would have been the cost of an early surrender? Do you think Russia would have allowed Ukraine to remain sovereign and independent after such a collapse?

You need educating on the basics. Peace does not equal surrender. Peace does not equal collapse. By lying to yourself about these things you create barriers to peace.

Many would rather die than see their country become Belarus.

Basic reality of war is that the many don't have a choice. There are many Ukrainian lads on the front line who would rather be anywhere else but there, but they don't have a choice because Ukraine, supported by us, will throw them in jail to rot away for a decade. They will have their lives ruined forever if they don't promise to put themselves in lethal danger and try to kill other people. This is evil, and it's evil we've been supporting for years.

You suggest mass Ukrainian migration has been a net gain for Europe

No, I didn't. I stated that there have been clear benefits because of the clear benefits.

Do you actually think European countries see war refugees as a ‘workforce boost’ rather than a massive social and economic strain? Can you name a single country where the government is celebrating the influx of millions of displaced people?

Most of them see them as a boost. I will leave you to do your own research on how many immigrant workers Germany believes it needs every year to counter the impact of the drop in its native workforce population. It won't take you long. There's lots of information available. Naturally governments don't celebrate this because it's politically difficult, but pro-immigration policies have been widespread across Europe for quite a few years now. Our current Prime Minister is inclined towards occasional periods of honesty, and has talked about the Tories running an open borders experiment to drive immigration to the max. To get immigrants who are culturally similar and more prone to integration is a boon. Yes, your upper middle class Sri Lankan university graduate may have a higher value, but there's not enough of them and poaching them really pisses off the nations they come from.

How would you feel if Trump actually pulled the U.S. out of NATO? You acknowledge he’s weakening the alliance—do you think Article 5 means anything under a Trump presidency

Amazed. Trump wouldn't be putting as much effort into fixing the alliance if he wanted to leave it. Article 5 is everything and is as strong as ever. If Trump wants to be free of article 5 (which he doesn't) he would just leave NATO. While he is in he will honour it.

You argue that Trump is giving Putin a face-saving off-ramp—but why does that off-ramp need to include legitimizing Russia’s invasion and shifting blame onto Ukraine? Is there a difference between negotiating for peace and excusing aggression in a way that guarantees more of it? Would you have advised Finland or Poland in 1939 to just "concede some land" to Hitler for the sake of peace? Why should we expect rewarding Russian aggression to end differently?

Finland was on the Nazi side. If you're going to use history to teach lessons it's probably a good idea to get details like this right. Poland fought valiantly and was rewarded with some of the highest casualty figures of the war and half a century of totalitarian rule. If they were given an alternative to having 20% of their population wiped out, their country in ruins, and their freedoms destroyed for a generation... and that alternative was losing a section of territory, how confident are you that they'd make that choice? Think of your family, pick out one of every five of them, and ask yourself what cause is worth such a sacrifice to you.

[Klaus klauts]

You are correct, in that peace does not automatically mean surrender, collapse or servitude -- but peace with Russia, does mean this very things for Russia.

Russia has stated times and times again, that this: collapse and restructuring of Ukraine, holding Ukraine in an eternal state of servitude to Russia, are their is goals of war, and that there will be no peace until those conditions are met. (They of course used a nicer wording)

Since there is fog of war, it can not be said with certainty, but it is likely that there are Ukrainians fighting for Ukraine, that don't really want to fight, or are even just forced to fight. On the one side, this is also the case on the Russian side: I know, that there have been no "mass-mobilization", but it is common practice in Russia to force people to accept treaties "out of their own will". And the conscripts that have been used to fight, were definitely not there because they wanted to be there. On the other side, look at the situation of the people that live (or have lived) in the occupied territories: Do you really think that people in Burtscha have consented to being massacred? Do you really think that Ukrainian children consented to be kidnapped? And what would life in "Russia" would even look like for the Ukrainians? Some of them may live, but would this life be significantly better than their life in war? For the soldiers fighting at the front, it probably will be that much better, but for everyone else it will not. Many soldiers have family, so they are also fighting for the future of their children; do you really think that after all this shit they have been through life in Russia, or a Russian-puppet state would be a result they are willing to accept?

Octavious, you are claiming a moral authority, you just do not have. You are probably thinking, that a peace between Russia and Ukraine will be for the greater good, that one has to make sacrifices to make peace, and if someone you can force making sacrifices does not want to make them, that you have the right, maybe even the duty, to force them into submission, completely overlooking the right of the Ukrainians for self-determination. This kind of thinking has produced nothing but misery in the past. Yes, history is a bad teacher, but when something fails 100% of the time, maybe we should take the lesson.

Do you think Ukrainians are stupid? Do you think Ukrainians love to live in trenches, killing Russians and getting killed by Russians? They want peace, but they have to consider these facts:
-- Any peace without security-guarantees by the US/EU will fail in less than 5 years. This has been proven time and time again.
Since businesses know this, there will not be any investments into Ukraine, so their economy will not recover.
-- Any peace will give the Russians time to rebuild their army (independent of the existence of US/EU-guarantees)

Thus, the Ukraine can not accept a peace without US/EU-guarantees. They would set themselves up for failure. And if you consider:

-- Russia will not accept a peace with US/EU-guarantees

You know, why there will be no peace. And do you think that this very last point is coincidence? Russia knows, that a peace without US/EU-guarantees is the only way for them to win. That is why they are so adamant about it, and that is why the Ukraine can under no circumstances give this concession to Russia. They are willing to give up territory, they are willing to compromise, but they are not willing to jump into the toilet.

[Klaus klauts]

*does mean this very things for the Ukraine.

[Octavious]

Russia have already said they are comfortable with Ukraine joining the EU. They just don't want it in NATO. Ukraine being in the EU effectively rules out the possibility of a new Russian invasion. It will give every EU member, including nuclear France, justification for direct military retaliation.

The sad truth is that the EU don't actually want Ukraine to be a member. It would cost a small fortune, and quite a few net beneficiary nations will suddenly find themselves as significant contributors. Germany, of course, will have the honour of paying the most.

Do I take it from your comments that you are in favour of peace if such guarantees are confirmed?

[Klaus klauts]

Again: I do have no right whatsoever to tell the Ukrainians what they should do. But, I can tell you what I would do if I was in their shoes: If there were dependable, plausible, strong security guarantees, then I would make peace, even if I would have to give up the territory currently captured by Russia.

This is also the opinion of Zelensky himself.

There are problems, however:
-- Russia does not want a peace with such guarantees. Thus, Russia will only make such a peace when it sees no other options. Russia has already received loads of damage, but they are willing to take even more, so the war will continue for even longer, until they really see no other option.
-- The US does not want to give guarantees
-- Germany does not want to give guarantees, and even if it wanted to, they would be not believable given the pathetic state of the Bundeswehr
-- Russia does not only want to get the territory it has already captured, but also territory is just "claims". This is a deal-breaker for Ukraine: Imagine Russia and Ukraine signing a deal, and the Ukraine retreats from the territory claimed by Russia. And as unreliable as Russia is, it could now just continue the attack, and has gained a massive amount of progress in its campaign just for free. That is why, the Ukraine can not just give territory to Russia it has not conquered.
-- Europe could give guarantees, but they are not very believable at the moment. Europe needs even more time to build its army, and until then, no believable guarantees can be given, so that the war must continue.

I am very surprised to hear, that Russia has nothing against the Ukraine entering the EU, do you have a source?

Anyway, it should be no problem to integrate the Ukraine into the EU-security-mechanism. Letting Ukraine into the EU-market is indeed something that will not happen in the next few years, but the main reason is not, that countries that are now taker would then be givers, the main reason is, that the economy of the Ukraine is far behind that of the nations of Europe, and its regulations have to be adjusted even further to EU-standards. If it entered the EU-market now, the Ukrainian economy would get annihilated in an instant, and it would probably also cause turbulence in the other parts of the EU-market. Integrating the Ukraine into the EU-market will happen in the long run, however, since it is highly beneficial to both the EU and the Ukraine.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I hope Oct is at least willing to change his mind when the US does in fact withdraw from NATO: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/elon-musk-backs-us-withdrawal-from-nato-alliance/

The goal here is to scupper NATO, not strengthen it. Oct won't believe it until it happens, but we're probably only months away.

[Klaus klauts]

I am very annoyed by Octavious making this mistake, but I do fear that many, even most people make it: Not accepting the facts as they are, because the facts feel "stupid and frightening", and therefore seeking for an alternative explanation.

The same mistake was done with Hitler: Years before he ever came to power, he laid out in his book "Mein Kampf" to the public, what he was planning for, he also talked about "a final solution to the Jewish question". Almost everybody thought, this to be just good political advertising, maybe a goal set too high so that he would later have a better position in compromise making. The majority, even of his own voters, did not think that he was serious -- but he was.

I do not want to say that Trump is even close to being as bad as Hitler, I just wanted to point out, that one has to be very careful to assume that a politician is just saying stuff "for tactical/ political reasons", ESPECIALLY if he is always saying the same stuff, and that for years.

Trump had for decades been a friend of Russia, long before he even was president. Until a few years ago, he did not care about the Ukraine, and after the Biden-affair, he wants revenge on Ukraine. He will personally not profit of a victorious Ukraine, but it is very possible that he will personally profit of a Russian victory. He has now talked years about forcing the Ukraine to submit to Russia, to even withdraw from NATO. There is no reason to believe that he is not serious about it -- why would he not be serious about it?

You, Octavious, are probably assuming that Trump wants the best for the USA, and therefore must strengthen NATO, and support the Ukraine. And this, I believe, is where the dog is buried: Why do you believe that? Why do you think that he want the best for the USA?

He has publicly stated that fallen soldiers are losers, and suckers, and that everything is about business. Why do you think that such a man is uncorruptible? Shouldn't Musk floating around him be enough of a hint to make you doubt Trumps incorruptibility?

The question you should ask yourself therefore is: "Is Trump trying to deceive us, or am I deceiving myself?"

[Klaus klauts]

* one mistake: he did not publicly state that fallen soldiers are losers, it was revealed later, and he did say that in a more private setting.

[Octavious]

I hope Oct is at least willing to change his mind when the US does in fact withdraw from NATO: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/elon-musk-backs-us-withdrawal-from-nato-alliance/

The goal here is to scupper NATO, not strengthen it. Oct won't believe it until it happens, but we're probably only months away.

If Trump actually leaves NATO I will indeed change my opinion on how much he values NATO .

The question is how long will the US have to stay in NATO before you concede that Trump wants to be there? My guess is that your opinion won't change even when Trump's Presidency is over and they're very much still in

[Klaus klauts]

2 years

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Do you actually think Trump would defend Estonia? It's not likely to happen because Europe has its own nukes, but Article V is dead. Trump continues to threaten annexing Canada weekly. If NATO persists (and it is indeed an "if") it will be hallowed from the inside out — every NATO capital is scrambling to reduce their reliance on the US.

I actually agree with many of your points above Oct, with the notable exception that Russia would have been easily deterred at an acceptable cost to Ukraine's sovereignty (I take Putin at his word when he says Russia should aspire to its Soviet greatness and that Ukraine is an aberration). I think Klaus's Hitler-Putin analogy is mostly wrong and, even where it fits, may no longer be relevant now that we are talking about nuclear armed powers.

My core disagreement with Oct is something he hasn't addressed yet. We agree Ukraine needs a negotiated settlement. I'm just profoundly skeptical that Trump literally taking Russia's side and visibly bullying Ukraine is in the US interest. It doesn't strike me as an action required to make a deal.

Deal-maker Trump should be crafting a deal that hurts Russia's offensive capabilities, forces the EU to take more responsibility over defense, and provides some minimum assurance to US allies that they won't be extorted and abandoned when push comes to shove. So far his approach has don't only one of these things (scare the shit out of the Europeans).

[Octavious]

Years before he ever came to power, he laid out in his book "Mein Kampf" to the public, what he was planning for, he also talked about "a final solution to the Jewish question

Please tell this to Jamie, who is very much under the impression that most of what Hitler did came as a surprise

You, Octavious, are probably assuming that Trump wants the best for the USA, and therefore must strengthen NATO, and support the Ukraine. And this, I believe, is where the dog is buried: Why do you believe that? Why do you think that he want the best for the USA?

Because he has spent a massive amount of time and effort trying to be President, despite the very obvious fact that the job is very bad for his chances of a long life and the fact that he was making a small fortune from the other business interests (such as The Apprentice) that he had to give up or hand over to others. I also tend to give the benefit of the doubt to all politicians. As a rule of thumb they're in it to make a positive difference. Many fail, but most try.

I believe he supports NATO because a strong alliance of like minded nations is very much in America's interests, and he has invested a great deal of time and effort bullying NATO members into pulling their weight, especially the shamefully neglectful nations such as Spain and Germany. I suspect he couldn't care less about Ukraine beyond not wanting America to be seen as losing or weak.

He has publicly stated that fallen soldiers are losers, and suckers

As you noted, he never publicly said this. An awful lot of things we know about what Trump said or did never actually happened. This is a mark of the poor standards of journalism that exist in the West today. I suspect it is linked to the remarkable decline of newspaper and TV revenues.

Why do you think that such a man is uncorruptible

What on earth made you believe that I think he's uncorruptible? I think he's one of the most corrupt leaders the US has had in modern times (and that includes Biden pardoning his lunatic druggy son of all crimes and Clinton fucking his way through the junior staff). I don't like Trump. I think he's a poor President and would never vote for him. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this.

[CaptainFritz28]

Again: I do have no right whatsoever to tell the Ukrainians what they should do. But, I can tell you what I would do if I was in their shoes: If there were dependable, plausible, strong security guarantees, then I would make peace, even if I would have to give up the territory currently captured by Russia.

This is also the opinion of Zelensky himself.

Isn't this what Trump has advised Zelensky to do? Why is there contention between them, then? I was under the impression that Zelensky wanted to take back all the territory currently under Russian control before conceding to Russia having it for peace.

[CaptainFritz28]

I've not studied Trump's most recent statements when it comes to his plan for negotiation, because I've been mostly out of the loop politically recently (classes have made me busy the last couple of weeks). Could someone who is more in the know educate me on what the different leaders have stated that their goals are for the negotiations?

[Klaus klauts]

The contention between them, is that Trump wants the Ukraine to make peace without giving them any security-guarantees (others are not able/ willing to give security-guarantees also). This does not work, so the Ukraine refuses it. Now he also wants money, by gaining rights to the minerals in the Ukraine, but again: without giving the Ukraine anything in return. And again, the Ukraine refuses, because this would be straight up robbery/ stupid.

[Octavious]

The contention between them, is that Trump wants the Ukraine to make peace without giving them any security-guarantees (others are not able/ willing to give security-guarantees also). This does not work, so the Ukraine refuses it.

The trouble is that it's kinda the default option. If Trump just walks away and ends all US funding (which no one can stop him from doing) then Ukraine doesn't have any security guarantees and has no choice but to negotiate peace from a greatly weakened position. Ukraine is perfectly entitled to not like it, but if that is what Trump decides to do there is literally nothing they can do to refuse it.

[Klaus klauts]

Trump is not in any way able to stop US funding, or at least the bulk of it, because it was already approved by congress (at least for the next year). It is a well established legal fact, that the president can not stop spending approved by congress.

You might now hold against this, that Trump might push congress to end funding, but this is unlikely to happen, because there are even now quite a few Ukraine-supporters in the Republican Party, so that Trump might fail with pushing congress in that direction, which would weaken his power severely. So he will probably not risk it, because he will suffer personally.

Naturally, funding may dry up in a year, but this gives Europe enough time to FINALLY step in. Germany will now have a new government, and with a little bit of luck, a very new wind will blow, such that the Ukraine does not depend on US-funding: Trump has not a monopoly on resource deals, after all.