I'm all for supporting local markets, but in the grand scheme I find it a bit pointless, when there's absolutely no plan or intention from anyone to deescalate the situation.
-
It's not that I don't understand the logic. It's that I don't believe scare tactics lead to peace. I agree that short term I it might scare of Putin, and that's obviously good, but it's a bandaid, not a solution, and one that, IMHO, is not easy to get away from.
Also, I find it sad that whenever someone mentions peace he gets ratioed and called a Putin apologist (not here but I see it a lot).
It is possible to want peace and still be against Putin. I get that it's a sensitive topic and intense times, but we just keep alienating and polarizing more and more people. We need a better approach.
How about counter invasion, or would that damage your flat in Moscow?
You are correct, they will build up momentum in the long term. This is why in the mid term they should be rebuffed and eventually reorganized into several smaller democracies. It's the only way to end this great power nonsense. No amount of diplomatic talks is going to do better than re-armament even if it does fail in the long term, that it's not a sustainable solution doesn't mean a better one exists.What are you really going on like this for?
-
How about counter invasion, or would that damage your flat in Moscow?
You are correct, they will build up momentum in the long term. This is why in the mid term they should be rebuffed and eventually reorganized into several smaller democracies. It's the only way to end this great power nonsense. No amount of diplomatic talks is going to do better than re-armament even if it does fail in the long term, that it's not a sustainable solution doesn't mean a better one exists.What are you really going on like this for?
I want people to stop dying for pointless wars from which they have nothing to gain
-
I want people to stop dying for pointless wars from which they have nothing to gain
-
False equivalency. The war was started pointlessly but to end it once and for all isn't pointless in the least. You conflate the two sides in this, Russia chose it so they can lose for it instead of us.
You said I have a flat in Moscow because I don't agree with your opinion. You throw terms like "false equivalency" hoping it sticks. I was talking about peace and you talk about counter invasion, not sure what the point in that is. Russia started the war so let's invade them and show them is not very productive or reasonable. We seem to have diametrically opposed opinions on war in general.
-
You said I have a flat in Moscow because I don't agree with your opinion. You throw terms like "false equivalency" hoping it sticks. I was talking about peace and you talk about counter invasion, not sure what the point in that is. Russia started the war so let's invade them and show them is not very productive or reasonable. We seem to have diametrically opposed opinions on war in general.
The point in it is to create a permanent peace. You asked for a solution and I gathered you hadn't heard that one before. I think your opinion on war is similar to Putin and Trump's, in that you talk directly or otherwise in favor of a pyrrhic peace that only empowers the aggressor. The better solution, the solution available to any victim being cornered and no-one else to come help them, is to throw a damn punch, ideally a crippling one.
There's no moral equivalency between an aggressor keeping their war going and a defender keeping the war going, that's what makes your implications of such an equivalency false. I think you might be a Russian agent, (in spirit at least hence the hyperbolic image of you cowering in some oblast) because you cling to an anachronistic pacifism and stall genuine conversation and preparation for what's to come.And it is coming, I think you know that.
-
The point in it is to create a permanent peace. You asked for a solution and I gathered you hadn't heard that one before. I think your opinion on war is similar to Putin and Trump's, in that you talk directly or otherwise in favor of a pyrrhic peace that only empowers the aggressor. The better solution, the solution available to any victim being cornered and no-one else to come help them, is to throw a damn punch, ideally a crippling one.
There's no moral equivalency between an aggressor keeping their war going and a defender keeping the war going, that's what makes your implications of such an equivalency false. I think you might be a Russian agent, (in spirit at least hence the hyperbolic image of you cowering in some oblast) because you cling to an anachronistic pacifism and stall genuine conversation and preparation for what's to come.And it is coming, I think you know that.
It's not peace when you have a gun over your head.
-
In the comment you responded to, I said I agree, it's easier to negotiate from a position of power. What's the plan afterwards? Everyone keeps saying that we need power to be able to negotiate, and I keep agreeing, and saying that there is no plan for later, and this is what I am worried about. I'm really interested in an answer for this question, but I just keep getting the same argument, which I'm not even opposed to.
It is the ONLY thing that solves it long term. Politics of the larger army have always worked.
-
It's not peace when you have a gun over your head.
-
That’s my hope but that’s assuming there will be demand and Germany can become competitive again. Right now those industries are failing because of expensive energy and that’s not about to change. In fact, it might get worse because Europe is getting LNG from the US now, and they’re not exactly friendly.
-
Prices spiked then stabilised but remained ar much higher levels than before. Russian gas was really cheap because of multiple factors and couldn’t be replaced without cost.
-
System shared this topic on
