Søgeresultater

Viser 11-20 af 294,304,886 forekomster
0
Rebinding interact and execute
Lige nu
wioum ⌂
37
7
Patch 2 is here!
Lige nu
Pianobraut
1
Franchise Crash after crash after crash
Lige nu
Terrapin
2
Dev mode commands which I found and did not know about
Lige nu
B312 [RG]
1
чё происходит
Lige nu
Peepnalip
35
7
I hope we get a Dawn of War 2 remaster too.
Lige nu
Voland
2
can someone please help me.
Lige nu
Xeriath
2
dew catcher is just better acorn container
Lige nu
Elvarion
1
Playtest review
Lige nu
󠀡󠀡
I forum "Off Topic"
36
Even FOX News can't hide summit disaster
Lige nu
Immortalis
Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:
Oprindeligt skrevet af Immortalis:
]

And we circle back to the usual question.
Any peace with Russia will be imperfect (and any peace agreement in history required the two parties to come to a compromise that was unsatisfactory for either one), but what is the alternative?
Sending millions of men to march into Russia? Bombing a country that possess nuclear weapons on intercontinental missiles? Starting WW3?
Are those really better options than Ukraine losing a few square miles?

I think the better questions to be asked are:

1) Why should Ukraine accept anything less than the return of annexed territory?

2) Why should Ukraine accept Russia annexing territory, when they're now doing this for a second time and very likely could do it for a third in the future?


Ukraine earned their independence when the USSR collapsed. Russia is now taking their territory illegally and by force, committing war crimes to achieve their goals. These are not people who should be appeased.

It's extremely sad how so many Americans, whose own freedoms they hold dear, do not care one bit about the freedoms of anyone else.

The answer is the same for both your questions:
Because Ukraine doesn't have the capabilities to stop Russia, let alone push them back over the border; and that's despite the untold billions the West poured in, both in terms of actual money and military hardware, not to mention the immaterial support - like sharing intelligence data and assets.

And the concept that war is not a viable way to solve international disputes is both extremely recent as well as not as widely accepted as a few countries (mostly in the West) like to think.

2023 saw 59 conflicts erupt worldwide, according to Uppsala University -https://www.brusselstimes.com/1086084/number-of-armed-conflicts-worldwide-is-at-its-highest-since-1946?utm_source=chatgpt.com
And 2024 saw 61 conflicts, including 11 full blown wars -
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/2024-most-conflicts-second-world-war-tcnb75m63?utm_source=chatgpt.com&region=global

Uppsala University identified no less than 285 armed conflicts since 1946
https://ithy.com/article/global-conflicts-post-wwii-analysis-sgd4qb4n?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Correlates of War, University of Michigan, makes that up to 170 conflicts in the same period
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137020956_2?utm_source=chatgpt.com


Now, since Ukraine doesn't have the strength to force a peace - because that is ultimately how peace is achieved, when the two sides realize they can gain nothing further and so peace is agreed upon, even if only temporarily - the options are:
- sit down and find a way to make a peace work; or
- escalate the conflict by involving more people.

And the second option is particularly dangerous since Russia has, as a core doctrine of national defense, the use of tactical nukes against any attempted invasion.



In an utopian settings no, this war would not end but with the expulsion of Russia from any Ukrainian territory.
In the real world though, that can only be achieved through a great expenditure of blood, with millions of dead and tens of millions of dead and wounded - civilians mostly and mostly in Europe.

And just like the British Empire and France gave it all during WW2 to achieve victory and were subsequently relegated to geo-political irrelevance, this time it will be the USA that will lose almost everything in such a fight.
With the big difference that this time around it would be China ready to pounce and take the mantle of hegemony.

It is precisely because we hold freedom dear that we do not want to send tens of millions of people to their deaths just to pave the way for the Chinese communist dictatorship to take control of the world.


And because of that Ukraine surrendering some areas - or making political concessions - is the better and safest option to end this war.
And just like I stated when the invasion started, Russia's #1 problem is the expansion of NATO to the East; and that is true regardless of how many time NATO tells the world they are a defensive alliance because throughout Russian history, they were always invaded by the people getting close to their border.
The solution to that particular problem is however rather easy and would even allow Kiev to enter into NATO: offer Russia membership in NATO as well.

In a single stroke you allay their fears of the alliance, involve a great military power, build up actually peaceful cooperation with the nation *and* gain a strong ally against China - which comes with a huge land border through which actual military operations might become feasible if Bejing tries anything funny.


Instead we're still smashing our heads against the wall of Cold War mentality that demands we make an enemy of Russia every single chance we have.
Viser 11-20 af 294,304,886 forekomster