Putin does not want to talk or negotiate. His offer for Ukraine is surrender. Ukraine would need to give up the 4 oblasts that Russia considers part of Russia, including their 2nd and 3rd largest cities.
Judging by how civilians fared in cities like mariopol and bucha, millions will die then anyway.
Talking with Russia will not resolve anything. Letting up on Russia will only allow them to come back stronger.
His offer for Ukraine is surrender. Ukraine would need to give up the 4 oblasts that Russia considers part of Russia, including their 2nd and 3rd largest cities.
Both 2nd and 3rd largest cities of Ukraine are outside of borders of 5 contested regions.
5 contested regions? Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporhizhia, Kherson, Crimea, Odessa.
And no #2 Kharkiv and #3 Odessa are both on Putin’s “wishlist”.
The end goal is to link up the coast to Transnistria and make what is left of Ukraine landlocked.
Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporhizhia, Kherson, Crimea
Only abovementioned 5 regions had referendums and therefore fall into “Russia considers part of Russia” category as they are really treated as Russian regions by Russian law. Any other regions of Ukraine are not, at least currently.
Well, if Putin says he considers Odessa part of Russia (see the tass article), we should believe him. The fact Odessa has not had a referendum and was annexed is not for lack of trying.
And the other 5 are according to Russian law, Russia. Meaning they can send conscripts there legally, as they can only be deployed within Russian borders.
A constantly repeated argument in the West is that Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is illegal under international law and that Ukraine thus has not only the right to defend itself, but also the right to ask other states for help in defending itself. This is indisputable, as this conclusion is based on the principles of the UN Charter. But does the UN Charter thereby also give the West the right to continue this war at will, to seek a military victory over Russia and to refuse all peace efforts on these grounds? Certainly not!
The West is not “continuing the war at will.” That phrase has no meaning in this context. The West is supplying Ukraine with the means to continue to resist the illegal Russian invasion.
The West would in fact have the right under Just War theory to enter into combat operations in Ukraine against Russian forces, and to operate combat operations against Russia up to and including invasion. Because Russia is the aggressor, Just War theory gives other nations the right to participate in the resistance of aggression.
If we swapped out “Ukraine” for “Poland” and the year was 1939, would you still feel good about the position you’re apparently defending?
Removed by mod
Let’s leave the veganism out of this. The question is whether or not others have a right to defend the victim of aggression.
Removed by mod
He’s asking how OP (and you?) think this is different from Poland in 1939. Regardless of whether or not you agree, do you understand the parallel being drawn?
They do, but they don’t have a counter-argument, so being deliberately obtuse is the v best they can come up with.
The claim being that… Western powers are unwilling to see the threat in appeasing Germany (Russia) because they want to focus on the perceived larger threat of communism (China)?
If we’re talking about the constant push for “peace talks” in Western media, no, they either want to focus on keeping the capitalism engine churning (instability is bad for global markets; small, manageable wars are fine, but huge East-West conflicts that result in huge sanctions aren’t. Sanctions = less business), or they’re seeking appeasement because they’re right wingers who agree with the ideals of the aggressor (I’d make some comparison about being the “modern equivalent of Nazi sympathisers”, but it’s just Nazi sympathisers. Same old song. Putin might not be a Nazi, but he sure is a fascist, and he hates all the things Nazis hate).
Outside of the mainstream media you’ve got a grab bag of leftists who either reflexively believe that all global conflict can be boiled down to “War bad, peace good, therefore weapons for Ukraine bad, peace talks with Russia good”, or who’ve conflated criticising Western imperialism (which, y’know, we absolutely should be doing) with the notion that ergo anyone who hates the West is the good guy. Usually equal parts of both. Plus of course, your alt-right types who love Putin because he hates the gays (see above).
The west is helping a country defend itself.
What is this blog? It has no About page or any info to judge its credibility.
The author: Michael von der Schulenburg, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, escaped East Germany in 1969, studied in Berlin, London and Paris and worked for over 34 years for the United Nations, and shortly the OSCE, in many countries in war or internal armed conflicts often involving fragile governments and armed non-state actors. These included long-term assignments in Haiti, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Sierra Leone and shorter assignments in Syria, the Balkan, Somalia, the Balkan, the Sahel, and Central Asia. In 2017, he published the book ‘On Building Peace – rescuing the Nation-State and saving the United Nations’, AUP.
Former UN Assistant Secretary-General is not credible.
Having never heard of this person, I have no reason to believe they exist, that they are who you claim, that they hold these credentials, that they wrote this blog post, that the blog publisher is credible, that you are credible….
You see the problem. It doesn’t pass even a basic CRAAP test.
Buddy didn’t bother to read the whole article, huh? The blurb OP is quoting is literally at the bottom.
Oh, I read it. I just have no reason to believe it. I have no reason to disbelieve it. I have no reason to think that it’s anything other than a collection of words that some random stranger posted to the internet. It makes a few good points, so I was trying to discover if it’s credible.
If Russia stops fighting, it’s the end of the war. If Ukraine stops fighting, it’s the end of Ukraine.
