Posted on 04/23/2024 2:23:15 AM PDT by Cronos
More and more people, including Pope Francis, are asking Ukraine to drop its defense and sit at the negotiation table with Russia. Citing the stalemate on the battlefield and Russia’s superior resources, they urge Ukraine’s leadership to consider a deal. What exactly that would involve is largely left unsaid. But it would clearly involve freezing the conflict, resigning Ukraine’s occupied territory to Russia in exchange for an end to the fighting.
My country, Moldova, knows all about that kind of bargain. A small western neighbor of Ukraine, Moldova experienced Russia’s first post-Soviet war of aggression, which ended with a cease-fire agreement in 1992. Thirty-two years later, 1,500 Russian troops are still stationed on internationally recognized Moldovan territory, despite the Kremlin’s formal agreement to withdraw them in 1994 and then once again in 1999. The case shows that Russia simply cannot be trusted.
But there’s a bigger problem for Ukraine than Russian untrustworthiness. It’s that freezing a conflict, without a full peace deal, simply does not work. For three decades, it has fractured Moldova, hindered national development and given Russia continued opportunities to meddle with Moldovan life. A frozen conflict, we should remember, is still a conflict. Anyone calling for Ukraine to settle for one should heed Moldova’s cautionary tale.
...the starkest division is in education. Above Transnistrian schools, the Russian and Transnistrian — but not Moldovan — flags are mounted. There, as well as in the press, Romanian is written in Cyrillic rather than Latin script, just as it was in the Soviet Union. In history classes, pupils learn that ethnic Romanians on the right bank of the Dniester are fascists who want to kill them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That was in the early 90s.
From 1999 to 2004 countries joined for fear of Russian revanchism.
Article 5 was invoked just once in NATO history - on the day after 9/11
That’s a logical fallacy - the state of affairs 150 years ago is not what we want to return to, with gunboat diplomacy.
In my opinion none of your boys should be fighting in Europe.
That’s why giving Ukraine weapons for them to fight is a better option.
Think of the situation if France and the UK had armed up Czechoslovakia in 1938.
The story was primarily about Moldova - Transdniester - Russia.
Do you agree that in that case, it is a frozen conflict.
Then it makes the analogy between transdniester and the Donbas - not with the Vietnam or Korean war
No, the legitimate question would have been: What policy do you propose the U.S. pursue re. Ukraine?
Regards,
Article 5 was invoked just once in NATO history - on the day after 9/11.
This also contradicts your prior assertion about NATO serving to protect Europe from Russian aggression, doesn't it?
NATO’s article 5 is that if any country attacks a member of the alliance, the other members come to help.
it isn’t Russia specific.
on 9.11 the USA was attacked and the USA invoked article 5. The other members came to the USA’s side.
Countries that joined NATO after 1999 joined in fear of Russian aggression - AND THEY WERE CORRECT - Russia invades its non-NATO neighbors
False Dilemma Fallacy! And/or "Red Herring."
Not a single FReeper here believes that our southern border is unimportant. Not a single FReeper here wouldn't like to see a nice, high wall built. Not a single FReeper here wouldn't like to summarily deport every Illegal.
By shifting the topic to a discussion of the southern border, you are distracting and evading.
Regards,
Russia will protect ethnic Russians by all means it deems necessary.
If Russia deems the replacement of the Ukrainian government is necessary, it will replace it.
The idea that Ukraine will beat Russia is silly. Ukraine can no more beat Russia than the Canadian military could win a war against the US military.
Given the premise that you are in fact a covert Russian asset or at least a "Fellow Traveler" or "Useful Idiot," are you
So which is it?
Regards,
NATO serves, inter alia, to protect Europe against Russian aggression.
Sheesh!
Happy now, Alberta's Child?
Regards,
Russia might be able to toss a million tons of high explosive force against Ukrainian forces each year - about 50 Hiroshima bombs worth of explosive force.
Do you think Ukrainian forces can hold out against such massive force?
Russia is able to divert to explosive manufacture all the hydrocarbons the EU refuses to buy.
At this point Russia is simply trying to blow up Ukrainian forces, sparing Ukraine’s cities and towns.
Before the war Putin stared in a long list, the countries he wanted to write the security policies for. It was the entire Soviet Union. That means he could bully them with out worrying about NATO. That’s the whole reason they were so anxious to join NATO.
I don’t agree. If that is true you would see equal outrage from them over the border, one simply doesn’t. I know several prominent Zeepers that when you look at their post history that have 10x (or whatever) posts about Ukraine than they do our own invasion. Besides money and resources don’t come in limitless quantities, even with Bidenomics printing money.
One can’t pay for the defense of Taiwan, Israel and of course Ukraine and still have the resources to defend our own border properly—apparently.
Although I will agree on one point MOST Freepers want a secure border.
Re: 50 - LOL!
1. No
2. No
3. No
You’re also arguing in bad faith. Not a good look.
Do better.
Re: 40 - Understand.
I never stated that those three options were the only options, as you correctly deduced when you proffered an option.
I should have been explicit in that point.
Stay out of it, offer humanitarian aid, defensive weapons like AA systems and landmines, and mediate peace negotiations.
I am with ya. The overly strident ones are foreigners or still tied to their birth countries who consider their home country first.
We aren’t supposed to consider our country first though. They want our money and they would also send our kids to die for them as they sit on their butts talking smack to us.
True-blue FReepers might not post so much about the invasion via our southern border because there's simply little to no controversy among FReepers regarding the "illegal alien" issue. We're all essentially in agreement, so there are no heated arguments here which might tempt one to "weigh in." Why even bother posting a comment on something so obvious, like the protection of our southern border?
I, for example, have never bothered to post a comment in which I presented evidence and logical conclusions on that issue; that would be superfluous here. I'll post at most an occasionally snarky remark, but no impassioned plea or well-researched argumentation. That can't be held against me - and shouldn't be held against my many fellow FReepers.
I know several prominent Zeepers that when you look at their post history that have 10x (or whatever) posts about Ukraine [...]
Have you likewise examined the posting history of those FReepers in favor of abandoning Ukraine and allowing Putin free hand? It is unfair of you to cast aspersions on pro-Ukrainian FReepers without applying the same criteria to those who would have us turn our backs on the Ukrainians.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.