I understand that Nato already agreed.Not entirely true. On condition NATO supply a replacement ( ie western)system to cover the gap and indeed somewhat cynical as they can no longer get spare parts for the S300.
I understand that Nato already agreed.Not entirely true. On condition NATO supply a replacement ( ie western)system to cover the gap and indeed somewhat cynical as they can no longer get spare parts for the S300.
My first example was the surrender of France to save Paris. What is so hard to understand?But you started off saying…
…what does that mean if not that exploring peace options is illogical and fighting is the correct response?
The bit where you say exploring the potential for peace is illogicalMy first example was the surrender of France to save Paris. What is so hard to understand?
Let’s hope there’s not a pitched battle up there. I had wondered if the ISS would become the next casualty of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Let’s hope there’s not a pitched battle up there. I had wondered if the ISS would become the next casualty of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Could you imagine the fight to see who goes in the escape capsual.We should drop it on the Kremlin.
You might descrbe it, like the polonium and novichok, as being of demonstration quality.Now using hypersonic missiles. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022...-hypersonic-missiles-in-ukraine-for-first-tim
After Crimea and Syria, Putin is getting the taste for war. I reckon he will continue to ramp things up and up in Ukraine.
Why are you asking me what I would give?
To be honest, I’m not sure why exploring a potential alternative to continued and escalating war is so controversial on pfm.
Especially as Zelensky himself has now called for peace talks and he obviously seems to think it an option worth exploring.
I’m struggling to make sense of your second paragraph
Your last paragraph is a repeat of the first two
Because by saying they should agree a peace but not saying what that peace might be you are not really saying anything beyond peace is good and we want it. Obviously I am not suggesting that what you or I think Ukraine should do matters but rather that there does need to be a workable solution and addressing the hard questions this implies is literally the difficulty here.
It's not remotely controversial on pfm or anywhere else, outside of Putin and the US hard right. It's just that you are not really exploring anything and and not really saying anything beyond we want the war to stop and when pressed for details you say "It's up to Ukraine" or "I'm just a simple man!".
By all means throw up your hands and wail at the hopelessness of it all and admit you don't have any answers, what I am finding hard to understand is that you seem to want to do this and be critical of other people for pointing out this alone is not going to stop the war and we need some actual suggestions.
There have been lots of talks. What Zelensky has now called for is *meaningful* talks that don't start with a set of obviously unacceptable to Ukraine preconditions. Again solving that impasse is the key to stopping the war not the idea that there should be talks and some sort of negotiated settlement.
Apologies. These posts take a lot for me to write and eventually I give up and just hit the button so they might not be the most polished. Hopefully my points are clear though.
Seems you are adopting a position that requires a solution from those calling for ceasefire and a negotiated settlement yet despite the obvious position that Ukraine cannot defeat the Russians and could well lose the entire infrastructure of the country attempting doing so you seem in favour of more fighting more destruction more death ie you offer nothing by way of a viable alternative- a different kind of wailing in despair imho.Of course "death or glory" is not my position nor remotely what I was suggesting any more than I would suggest yours is one of appeasement or capitulation.
And they literally are having talks and trying to get a cease fire. They are just not going anywhere because the two sides have incompatible demands. The fact that I strongly support one side over the other doesn't change this calculus any more than really, really wanting an end to war.
But I have not said that Ukraine should agree a peace.
Neither have I been critical of anyone pointing out that this alone is not going to stop the war.
I didn't say that. Read the whole post, not just the first few words.The bit where you say exploring the potential for peace is illogical
Seems you are adopting a position that requires a solution from those calling for ceasefire and a negotiated settlement yet despite the obvious position that Ukraine cannot defeat the Russians and could well lose the entire infrastructure of the country doing so you seem in favour of more fighting more destruction more death ie you offer nothing by way of a viable alternative.
Agreed, that is almost exactly my own position. Though I believe the 'window' is now before too much territory is lost and Ukraine still has sufficient armed forces to continue to inflict heavy damage on Russian forces. Negotiations usually run simultaneously /go hand in hand with war fighting.My position is that there should be a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement and I am against more fighting and destruction. My point is that saying this is just saying what everyone wants (Putin and US warmongers aside) and whilst reiterating this as often as possible is a good thing it doesn't bring us any closer to actually ending the war.
I believe there won't be a change in this until something significantly changes in the current calculus of one or other of the two sides. This is not because I am in favour of war or think the west should get involved or think Ukraine can heroically fight to victory or anything like that but because I believe Putin won't stop this until something changes to make his position change. I think that is just the reality of the situation and there is not much to be done beyond what is already being done.
People have a feeling often that when matters are important, it is important for them to figure out the correct take on things, and see if they can convince others. Whether they have any ddirect power to influence what happens in the important matters is not part of it.I doubt that neither Zelensky nor Putin read PFM, so they will continue the war as long as it serves the interests of each their country. They will also (seem to) negotiate as long as they see fit.
If your words “I don’t think it’s even logical” in reference to my post about peace talks does not mean that it’s illogical, what does it mean?I didn't say that. Read the whole post, not just the first few words.