It most certainly is not nuanced since he's failed to realise that diplomacy was tried, Russia put up completely unacceptable terms (not to mention impossible) and so here we are. His position literally is "give peace a chance" when were several steps past that already.Originally Posted by Siv
His point is diplomacy must continue. As you state currently it has stopped. Ultimately any war must end with diplomacy. Not sure what you aren't getting here?It most certainly is not nuanced since he's failed to realise that diplomacy was tried, Russia put up completely unacceptable terms (not to mention impossible) and so here we are. His position literally is "give peace a chance" when were several steps past that already.
Diplomacy ended because they were going around in circles and Russia was committing atrocities. Now we're going through the process of killing enough Russians to force them to either retreat or come up with more sensible demands. This won't be served by following Corbyn's naive and simplistic course of (in)action. He's essentially working from the same "west bad, therefore Russia good" playbook that he's been riffing off forever. It's the opposite of nuanced.
Also, saying any war must end in diplomacy is hilariously reductionist. WW2 ended when the axis was so thoroughly beating they had no choice but to surrender. WW1 wasn't exactly massively different. Vietnam didn't exactly end through diplomacy either. The Chinese communist revolution didn't end through diplomacy either, the other side ran away and the communists lacked the means to assault Taiwan, so they ended up in a stalemate.
Those are exceptions though. Wars usually end through diplomacy, not the total annihilation of the enemy.Diplomacy ended because they were going around in circles and Russia was committing atrocities. Now we're going through the process of killing enough Russians to force them to either retreat or come up with more sensible demands. This won't be served by following Corbyn's naive and simplistic course of (in)action. He's essentially working from the same "west bad, therefore Russia good" playbook that he's been riffing off forever. It's the opposite of nuanced.
Also, saying any war must end in diplomacy is hilariously reductionist. WW2 ended when the axis was so thoroughly beating they had no choice but to surrender. WW1 wasn't exactly massively different. Vietnam didn't exactly end through diplomacy either. The Chinese communist revolution didn't end through diplomacy either, the other side ran away and the communists lacked the means to assault Taiwan, so they ended up in a stalemate.
Worked well with ww1 eh?
Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.
If you really want to play gotcha, the surrender part wasn't the problem, it was the negotiated settlement. You know, the diplomacy part.
You could argue that ww1 and ww2 ended in diplomacy, but regardless this war will. Ukraine won't step foot past their previously held territory and looks unlikely to capitulate, so a diplomatic solution will be needed at some point.Diplomacy ended because they were going around in circles and Russia was committing atrocities. Now we're going through the process of killing enough Russians to force them to either retreat or come up with more sensible demands. This won't be served by following Corbyn's naive and simplistic course of (in)action. He's essentially working from the same "west bad, therefore Russia good" playbook that he's been riffing off forever. It's the opposite of nuanced.
Also, saying any war must end in diplomacy is hilariously reductionist. WW2 ended when the axis was so thoroughly beating they had no choice but to surrender. WW1 wasn't exactly massively different. Vietnam didn't exactly end through diplomacy either. The Chinese communist revolution didn't end through diplomacy either, the other side ran away and the communists lacked the means to assault Taiwan, so they ended up in a stalemate.
Which was exactly why the Allies said "Unconditional surrender or keep dying, call us when you're ready for option 1"If you really want to play gotcha, the surrender part wasn't the problem, it was the negotiated settlement. You know, the diplomacy part.
Russia's culture needs a massive enforced reset, just as Germany's did
MB: And which arguably Britain never got when it should have, but Britain had the sense to mostly start shit with nations that were never going to be in a position to force anything but a local surrender, regardless of the outcome of the war, so the matter never came up.
Britain took that risk in WW1 and (especially) WW2 to be fair. We just dont tend to lose conflicts at that kind of scale (perfect 100% record of 2/2).Which was exactly why the Allies said "Unconditional surrender or keep dying, call us when you're ready for option 1"If you really want to play gotcha, the surrender part wasn't the problem, it was the negotiated settlement. You know, the diplomacy part.
Russia's culture needs a massive enforced reset, just as Germany's did
MB: And which arguably Britain never got when it should have, but Britain had the sense to mostly start shit with nations that were never going to be in a position to force anything but a local surrender, regardless of the outcome of the war, so the matter never came up.
In a case where Ukraine basically kick Russia off their clay, what happens is an ongoing situation of continual border skirmishes and provocations, plus the usual russian info/memetic warfare, dialled up to 11. Probably some terrorists attacks and some shipping sunk, those could have been anyone's torpedoes why always you nazis pick on poor RussiaYou could argue that ww1 and ww2 ended in diplomacy, but regardless this war will. Ukraine won't step foot past their previously held territory and looks unlikely to capitulate, so a diplomatic solution will be needed at some point.Diplomacy ended because they were going around in circles and Russia was committing atrocities. Now we're going through the process of killing enough Russians to force them to either retreat or come up with more sensible demands. This won't be served by following Corbyn's naive and simplistic course of (in)action. He's essentially working from the same "west bad, therefore Russia good" playbook that he's been riffing off forever. It's the opposite of nuanced.
Also, saying any war must end in diplomacy is hilariously reductionist. WW2 ended when the axis was so thoroughly beating they had no choice but to surrender. WW1 wasn't exactly massively different. Vietnam didn't exactly end through diplomacy either. The Chinese communist revolution didn't end through diplomacy either, the other side ran away and the communists lacked the means to assault Taiwan, so they ended up in a stalemate.Basically Russia does their best to make things shit for Ukraine without actually committing to another invasion and hopes for popular opinion to turn to "whatever makes this stop pls".
The answer is to keep the boot of sanctions on Russia's neck and switch away from their fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. The first business day after Europe doesn't need that gas any more, then Russia gets the Terrorist State treatment, which is to say anyone who wants to do business with Russia doesn't get to do business with the US and Europe.
Easy choice for most nations.
After a couple of years of that treatment, the Russian economy will kinda plateau out at a much lower level and the Federation will be rife with regional separatism. And hopefully Putin will be dead by then and the new guy tries for a different deal.
That kind of diplomacy.
And you'd be wrong in at least one case. The axis was completely beaten or under threat of nuclear annihilation. "Surrender unconditionally or die" is not a diplomatic solution.
So why make Ukraine's hand as weak as possible unless you're being incredibly simplistic (and thus not nuanced)?but regardless this war will. Ukraine won't step foot past their previously held territory and looks unlikely to capitulate, so a diplomatic solution will be needed at some point.
I was worried there for a little bit, but now it seems the nuclear apocalypse has been prevented:
https://twitter.com/theurigeller/sta...02442829611008
New JerseyIn wonder where all the British and U.S. American T-34 production facilities were located ...
At least one Guards tank division was equipped with 76mm Shermans which the crews preferred over the T34/85 as it was better egonomically and was more survivable if hit with comparable armour and firepower.
Russia would have won without lendlease but it would have taken far longer and at far greater cost. Initially Russia was on the defensive and the small trickle of lendlease wasn't critical to the sucesses of 1942/43. However it was the food - Russia was on the verge of starvation - raw materials and in particular the transport provided by lendlease that allowed the advances of 1944 and 1945. The T34 and the 122mm artillery did the fighting, but it was the dodge trucks, the cans of spam, the felt boots and the medicines that kept the armies advancing. If Russia had to manufacture all the trucks it recieved via lendlease they would have had far fewer tanks.
I have so many questions about this.https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/com..._lost_someone/
Everything can be explained with the proper application of Vodka.
Had a wild vatnik stumble into failheaps discord server the other day. Said that our discussion on the Ukraine thread there had leaked into various Russian telegram channels. Started spurting that the Serbian genocide in Bosnia was "bullshit" and "US propaganda". Got a ban faster than he could spell "NATO intervention".
That was.... strange.
whats the name of the failheap discord
TIL what vatnik means and that other people except nerds who are to nerds what nerds are to normal people read FHC.
Guns make the news, science doesn't.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks