UA-RU-NATO War & Ukraine Peace Talks | Discussions

[Erecon]

We keep talking about NATO as if that's something that still exists. Huge mistake.

Trump will never honor article 5 if Russian tanks roll into Estonia. All of Europe knows it. Russia knows it. China knows it. Hell, even most of the American political class knows it.

NATO used to be the bedrock of US global influence, and the keystone of its own national security - but now it's gone. Americans killed it at the ballot box on Nov 5. Well; I hope at least the eggs have gotten cheaper...

Its not Trump that decides if they are going to honor article 5 its congress. ( And he cannot pull US out of NATO without 2/3 vote of congress, good luck with that lol ) But he can play neutral, and be a "pain in the butt" by not commiting anything to NATO. ( while there is no war )

 

[Deleted account]

Its not Trump that decides if they are going to honor article 5 its congress. ( And he cannot pull US out of NATO without 2/3 vote of congress ) But he can play neutral, and be a "pain in the butt" by not commiting anything to NATO.

Tomayto, tomahto. The marching orders come from the WH. Congress is not in command of any troops, and cannot "decide to honor" (or not to honor) article 5.

It's all in Trump's hands, and he can do whatever the hell he wants.

 

[NuclearID]

orders come from the WH. Congress is not in command of any troops, and cannot "decide to honor" (or not to honor) article 5.It's all in Trump's hands, and he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Your very correct. Also was thinking;

As the far right likes to remind us. He is above the law and can do anything as no one can arrest a sitting president unless impeached, as they like to remind us often.

GOP have already made it clear, Trump can do anything against the constitution or law and they won't impeach him. He has essentially already become a dictator.

Only two GOP SCOTUS justices stand in the way between us and Trump turning us into an Electoral Autocracy much like Turkey or Hungary.

Unfortunately SCOTUS can't stop Trump from not honoring our treaties or alliances... or dismantlement of America's corner stone of nation security for past 80 years+...

 

[Gargolu]

 

[william]

Your very correct. Also was thinking;

As the far right likes to remind us. He is above the law and can do anything as no one can arrest a sitting president unless impeached. GOP have already made it clear, Trump can do anything against the constitution or law and they won't impeach him. He has essentially already become a dictator.

Only two GOP SCOTUS justices stand in the way between us and Trump turning us into an Electoral Autocracy much like Turkey or Hungary.

Unfortunately SCOTUS can't stop Trump from not honoring our treaties or alliances... or dismantlement of America's corner stone of nation security...

I thought we were going with appeaser today.

 

[Snowfall]

It is simple as that. I have no further intentions on entertaining poor Russian talking points. I see Putin is so far up most the GOPs ass it's sickening. Some so blind to it too, scary.

Yes because every other point besides pro-Ukraine is pro-Russia . Ukraine isn’t the be all end all of European security, it’s a non-NATO country that everyone made clear was not going to be actively defended by NATO, NATO said they’d be a member almost 20 years ago and has made literally zero movement on that pledge, and Ukraine is slowly losing territory and manpower. It’s not pro-Russian to recognize the reality of the world. The Russian government is run by morons who should be in jail for war crimes and I wish they come to their senses and would stop their illegal invasion of Ukraine that they alone started. But let’s not pretend that just because not everyone agrees with everything the Ukrainians want it’s somehow a Russian talking point.

 

[NuclearID]

I thought we were going with appeaser today.

Someone can be a slimy, spineless, traitorist appeaser dictator. You do know people can be more then one thing yes?

Like me, I can be a conniving, emotional, raging bitch sometimes. Who am I kidding, most the time.

 

[Snowfall]

I thought we were going with appeaser today.

Here’s another interesting thought process, every single peace treaty in history is appeasement. It’s only called appeasement when the treaty doesn’t hold.

 

[NuclearID]

Here’s another interesting thought process, every single peace treaty in history is appeasement. It’s only called appeasement when the treaty doesn’t hold.

Strawman argument or red herring. Go to telegram with that poor russian talking point.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Here’s another interesting thought process, every single peace treaty in history is appeasement. It’s only called appeasement when the treaty doesn’t hold.

That's just not true lol

 

[NuclearID]

That's just not true lol

Yup. Total strawman argument. Don't even bother.

 

[Snowfall]

That's just not true lol

Really? Prove me wrong.

 

[Deleted account]

Unfortunately SCOTUS can't stop Trump from not honoring our treaties or alliances... or dismantlement of America's corner stone of nation security...

He's gonna ruin your military too, to the point where countries outside of North America will stop being fearful of it. As a wise person once said - "All the ills that plague a society are also reflected in its military, usually in a much more concentrated form."

I'm seeing more and more comments from serious people wondering if the USA will still be a viable geopolitical force this time next year - given the speed with which it is self-destructing under Trump and Musk. Unfortunately, that's cold comfort to places like Canada, because even a severely impaired US will remain a threat to its direct neighbors.

 

[Snowfall]

Yup. Total strawman argument. Don't even bother. He's been consumed entirely with Russian appeasement talking points. Very sad. Thought he was better than that.

You have no arguments other than calling everything pro Russian or appeasement.

 

[william]

A European air force of 120 fighter jets could be deployed to secure the skies from Russian attacks on Kyiv and western Ukraine without necessarily provoking a wider conflict with Moscow, -

The Guardian Sky Shield, its proponents argue, would be a European-led air protection zone operated separately from Nato to halt Russian cruise missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure, potentially operating as part of the “truce in the sky” proposed by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this week.

What could go wrong THERE!

 

[Snowfall]

Yup. Total strawman argument. Don't even bother.

Ok let’s start with example number one Japanese surrender at the end of World war 2. Japan surrendered in exchange for the promise the United States won’t bomb them anymore and the soviets won’t invade them. This is classified as a peace treaty. If the United States decided 3 years later ya know what let’s finish off Japan and invades them again then you would say Japan appeased the United States by giving them what they want in the hope of peace.
The difference between appeasement and a peace treaty is one holds.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Ok let’s start with example number one Japanese surrender at the end of World war 2. Japan surrendered in exchange for the promise the United States won’t bomb them anymore and the soviets won’t invade them. This is classified as a peace treaty. If the United States decided 3 years later ya know what let’s finish off Japan and invades them again then you would say Japan appeased the United States by giving them what they want in the hope of peace.
The difference between appeasement and a peace treaty is one holds.

Wow. Okay so let me paint you the obvious difference in big bright letters. WE WERE AT WAR WITH JAPAN. WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH RUSSIA. APPEASMENT OCCURS BEFORE A 1 on 1 CONFLICT BEGINS.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Google AI does a wonderful job summarizing the topic! The joys of technology!
Appeasement is a diplomatic strategy that involves giving in to an aggressive country or group to avoid conflict. The goal is to maintain peace by satisfying the aggressor's demands.

Examples of appeasement

• Britain and Nazi Germany
  In the 1930s, Britain appeased Nazi Germany to avoid World War II. This policy is best known for the actions of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (1937–1940).
  
  
• Italy and Ethiopia
  In 1936, Italy captured Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, and proclaimed Victor Emmanuel III as Emperor. The League of Nations abandoned sanctions, which discredited the League.
  

Appeasement in a sentence

• • "When he agreed to talks with the prime minister, he was accused of appeasement".
  • "Appeasement was also a policy used in the 1930s by England and France in response to Germany's military attempts to take more land".

 

[Peter Griffin]

Ok let’s start with example number one Japanese surrender at the end of World war 2. Japan surrendered in exchange for the promise the United States won’t bomb them anymore and the soviets won’t invade them. This is classified as a peace treaty. If the United States decided 3 years later ya know what let’s finish off Japan and invades them again then you would say Japan appeased the United States by giving them what they want in the hope of peace.
The difference between appeasement and a peace treaty is one holds.

Also with your own logic Trump's peace deal would be appeasement. So technically we agree!

 

[Snowfall]

Google AI does a wonderful job summarizing the topic! The joys of technology!
Appeasement is a diplomatic strategy that involves giving in to an aggressive country or group to avoid conflict. The goal is to maintain peace by satisfying the aggressor's demands.

Examples of appeasement

• Britain and Nazi Germany
  In the 1930s, Britain appeased Nazi Germany to avoid World War II. This policy is best known for the actions of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (1937–1940).
  
  
• Italy and Ethiopia
  In 1936, Italy captured Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, and proclaimed Victor Emmanuel III as Emperor. The League of Nations abandoned sanctions, which discredited the League.

Appeasement in a sentence

• • "When he agreed to talks with the prime minister, he was accused of appeasement".
  • "Appeasement was also a policy used in the 1930s by England and France in response to Germany's military attempts to take more land".

Yes but thats what I’m getting at appeasement is only labeled as such when it doesn’t work. The Oxford dictionary defines to appease as to “1. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.”
nothing specifies that appeasement takes place to avoid a conflict people can also appease to a conflict widening or their country being completely destroyed. Another famous example of appeasement is the U.S. pulling Jupiter missiles out of Turkey so the soviets pulled theirs out of Cuba so the U.S. didn’t have to bomb them and start a war. At face value most diplomacy involves some level of appeasement that’s why I argue so heavily for security guarantees for Ukraine because being able to prevent the conflict from starting again through sheer military force. That’s what keeps a peace treaty in place versus a peace treaty from become a shitty appeasement.