Cunning-Artifice t1_j22zdoy wrote
Unfortunately sometimes the path to true peace is to fight. If Ukraine negotiates with Russia, and the resulting agreement ends with Russia holding any more land than when they started this war the lesson will be that military conquest is still a viable strategy, and it will only be a matter of time before Putin decides to take another bite, or someone else decides to attack their neighbour, because, hey it worked for Russia. And if a peace is agreed to, the sanctions will probably be lifted, and the lesson taken from that will be that if you can tough out the sanctions and force your opponent to the negotiation table the sanctions will disappear, which will only encourage escalation.
Peace is a good goal, but without looking at the consequences and the lessons that will be taught, it will only be a fleeting thing.
In my opinion, a large part of the cause of WW2 were the conditions attached to the peace after WW1, and Chamberlain's proclamation of "peace in our time" probably increased the chances of a large scale war, when a less peaceful response might have averted the conflict escalating to the point that it did...
PubliusDeLaMancha t1_j24mgu7 wrote
Neville Chamberlain takes all the blame but people need to remember that the UK and France were democracies and that another war with Germany was wholly unpopular. Sure, we have the benefit of hindsight and knowing that France could have entirely destroyed the German state had they invaded while Germany was busy invading Poland... But the world doesn't work that way. A more aggressive posture from Chamberlain at the time likely would have just resulted in him being forced to resign.
As you rightfully point to the Treaty of Versailles as in many ways creating a scenario that would inevitably lead to a second war, have to understand that Russians feel the same way about the break up of the Soviet Union.
Recall the first world war, and the infamous Treaty of Brest Litovsk that ended the Russian Empires participation in the war. I think people forget that unlike in WW2, in the Great War Germany actually won on the eastern front and forced Russian surrender. This treaty would have deprived the Russian Empire of Finland, the Baltic States, and Ukraine.. This was seen as so cruel and intolerable that the Western Allies reversed it at the end of the war.
Now, compare the European territory lost in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk to the European territory lost in the Breakup of Soviet Union and you start to understand the Russian perspective. Territory that the entire world once understood to be Russian and allowed to remain so despite German conquest, less than 80 years later, a single lifetime, the world now acts like that territory should have never been Russian to begin with..
To be clear I'm not suggesting Russia should reconquer Soviet states, even if she were militarily capable of that. My point is only that a basis for an honest peace with Russia would be better if the West used Putins own logic against him rather than negotiate from a position of idealism.
While there might be a semblance of truth to Putins claim that the end of WW2/USSR left the world with historically anachronistic borders, it would be good to remind him that Russia benefited from that as well, namely Kaliningrad in Europe and the Kuril/Sakhalin island of Japan. The cession of those territories should be the first thing in any deal to recognize Crimea.
And for the record, this resulting agreement that military conquest is still a viable strategy against countries not in NATO is simply the status quo since NATOs inception. Changes nothing
macrofinite t1_j261rhe wrote
The comparison between the treaty of Versailles and the collapse of the USSR seems like one hell of a false equivalence, and suggesting anybody cater to it seems like trying to beat Putin at a rigged game.
Yeah, Versailles was a terrible solution in hindsight. But Germany had quite a bit of culpability in the millions of lives lost in the war, and the harsh terms can be understood from that perspective.
The USSR collapsed under its own weight. The other Soviet states chose to become independent. It’s literally nothing but petulant entitlement for the Russian Federation to lay claim to any part of them now.
If they want a more regional power base to counter NATO, perhaps they should try diplomacy rather than dick swinging, manipulation and conquest.
LefthandedCrusader t1_j28kcla wrote
A bit of culpability, yes. And France, Italy, Russia, Romania, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans and the Americans also had that bit of culpability. I don't recall anybody forcing them into the war.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments