Well for all those making hundreds of billions of extra profits selling gas to EU at current prices, the best path would be for this war to never end. This makes me question the sincerity of such titles like this one.
Yes, if Putin can have any victory in Ukraine it will only embolden him to try for more as we have already seen. That is why we must support Ukraine and ensure Russia gets nothing from it’s aggression.
100% Ukraine needs air defense systems. They need to be able to protect themselves from the mass shellings.
Whilst in 2014 it wasn’t crystal clear that Russia would keep on trying to get more, even when given what it claimed it wanted, there is no doubt whatsoever at this point that they won’t stop with agression, just pause to rest, so it doesn’t make sense to settle with Russia in a situation were they end up gaining from their agression: it just incentivates them to restart agression at a later date when it’s more convenient for them.
Basically Russia has to be treated as an unreformed bully.
There are also other reasons for not having talks with Putin, namelly:
1. As the victims, it’s up to ukranians to decide whether to stop or not, nobody else.
2. Given the way the russians have conducted this war, from what they did in pretty much every place they occupied (for example Bucha), their continued purposeful targetting of civilians with artillery and missiles and their latest strategy of taking out civilian power and gas infrastructure in as Winter starts to really bite, it’s entirelly to moral thing to do to crush by every means and in every way possible, not talk to them.
Amen
Why not do both
Two controversial things I wonder about:
– Is it possible to give Ukraine the ability to destroy Russian missile infrastructure? The missiles that destroy Ukraines power etc. but before the missiles leave the ground?
– if Russia continues to attack civilian towns and infrastructure, is there a case for allowing tactical strikes by Ukraine on Russian infrastructure? Or would this escalate too far?
Genuine sanctions would be a more peaceful, but also self inflicted painful way to deal with this.
Not this faux, virtue signalling sanctions for optics.
But no. Feeding into the military industrial complex, enabling governments to make money from the war is ofcourse the right course of action.
It will cost unnecessary lives to be lost at both sides, but that’s a sacrifice governments supplying military equipment are willing to ~~earn~~ make
9 comments
More war! Yay for war!
Well for all those making hundreds of billions of extra profits selling gas to EU at current prices, the best path would be for this war to never end. This makes me question the sincerity of such titles like this one.
Yes, if Putin can have any victory in Ukraine it will only embolden him to try for more as we have already seen. That is why we must support Ukraine and ensure Russia gets nothing from it’s aggression.
100% Ukraine needs air defense systems. They need to be able to protect themselves from the mass shellings.
Whilst in 2014 it wasn’t crystal clear that Russia would keep on trying to get more, even when given what it claimed it wanted, there is no doubt whatsoever at this point that they won’t stop with agression, just pause to rest, so it doesn’t make sense to settle with Russia in a situation were they end up gaining from their agression: it just incentivates them to restart agression at a later date when it’s more convenient for them.
Basically Russia has to be treated as an unreformed bully.
There are also other reasons for not having talks with Putin, namelly:
1. As the victims, it’s up to ukranians to decide whether to stop or not, nobody else.
2. Given the way the russians have conducted this war, from what they did in pretty much every place they occupied (for example Bucha), their continued purposeful targetting of civilians with artillery and missiles and their latest strategy of taking out civilian power and gas infrastructure in as Winter starts to really bite, it’s entirelly to moral thing to do to crush by every means and in every way possible, not talk to them.
Amen
Why not do both
Two controversial things I wonder about:
– Is it possible to give Ukraine the ability to destroy Russian missile infrastructure? The missiles that destroy Ukraines power etc. but before the missiles leave the ground?
– if Russia continues to attack civilian towns and infrastructure, is there a case for allowing tactical strikes by Ukraine on Russian infrastructure? Or would this escalate too far?
Genuine sanctions would be a more peaceful, but also self inflicted painful way to deal with this.
Not this faux, virtue signalling sanctions for optics.
But no. Feeding into the military industrial complex, enabling governments to make money from the war is ofcourse the right course of action.
It will cost unnecessary lives to be lost at both sides, but that’s a sacrifice governments supplying military equipment are willing to ~~earn~~ make