The history is FULL of examples in which "Appeasement" has brilliantly achieved the goal to avoid wars. An example? 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Just to say one.
For sure... if you search in the history of wars, you will never find an example in which "Appeasement" worked, of course!
But.. try instead to find, in the "history of the wars never broken out", how much times an uncompromising behaviour has avoid wars, and then compare it with how much times to be disposed to compromises has avoid wars.
No, appeasement in that situation would have been the West removing their nuclear weapons from Italy and Turkey for fears that the USSR might use theirs in Cuba. In that situation, uncompromising behaviour forced Kennedy and Khrushchev to reassess their strategic priorities. That led to negotiations, not appeasement, in which both sides were willing to make concessions. For all his talk of wanting negotiations, Putin
has already demonstrated during this war that the only negotiations he is willing to take part in are negotiations on his terms. Negotiate with him, yes, but do not appease him by giving him any of Ukraine.
It's not a similar situation, it's an opposite situation: Hitler was sure to obtein results because he thought that the "democracies" were too much "pacifist" to stop him. Putin, instead, is disposed towards diplomatic settlements, but he find a wall of concrete.
This description perfectly highlights why this situation is so similar. You're looking at that "a posteriori", not "a priori". Some factors during Weimar likely strengthened his beliefs that are beyond the scope of this thread. Hitler likely gained that belief when he saw how weak the response was to him tearing up the post-WW1 settlements. That emboldened him to attack all the countries that he did. A message we likely sent to Putin when nothing was done about Crimea's annexation. He believed he could take out Ukraine's government in three days, and that we'd be too "pacifist" to get involved in a war that was already over. That's not me assuming anything, that's information that has actually come out.
you don't really know that. And going towards a war with an uncompromising behaviour makes impossible to actually know that.
I'm not making any blind assumptions, I'm basing what I'm saying on patterns of behaviour Putin has already displayed.
Actually, Russia could say exaclty the same thing. And I think it could have more reasons then us on this point. there never was at all any kind of even minimal openness about even just one problem presented by Russia.
Sources? If I rock up to Porsche, demand they give me a free Porsche, get nowhere, then go back and threaten to blow all of Porsche up unless they give me a free Porsche, should they give me it? All because I go around saying I've hit a concrete wall with Porsche because they won't give me a free car and that blowing them up is now the only option? Should we negotiate so I don't blow them up? Absolutely. Should they give me a free car? Absolutely not.
ok. However the example you made it doesn't fit at all on Ukrainian situation.
Yes it does. You'd said that the US supplying the type of weaponry to Ukraine that NATO has supplied is unprecedented, I used that example to highlight it is not as unprecedented as we might think.
@Seriously pointed out that equipment was provided to North Vietnam for use against US armed forces which was just as deadly as HIMARS. Ukrainians have been given strict instructions that NATO weapons are to be used for self defense only. North Vietnam used their weapons for self-defense too. The two situations have many similarities.
he didn't stop at Crimea because the diplomatic ways finalized to solve Russia worries about its security were completely sabotaged, sending to Russia people totally incompent and opposed to find any kind of compromise as Liz Truss, who didn't ever know where Donbass is in the world, just to make an example. you can't give the 100% blame of the beginning of a war to an other, when YOU, you actually have made NOTHING in order to avoid it, but you put gazoline on the fire instead!
Sources please.
I don't really want to hijack this thread debating whatabouts. If you don't agree with me that's fine, but I worry we might be taking things a little off topic now.
tass.com
