This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
What’s the point of comparing rhetoric that has nothing to do with each other?
The comment you replied to compared it giving Poland away to Hitler since it both connected by the act of giving in to the demands of a dictator to avoid war, which WW2 has proven doesn’t work.
Your comment instead is comparing the act of giving into Putin’s demand is equal to pacifists refusing mandatory military service, which sounds ridiculous.
How did the countries (excepting Poland) who currently make up NATO respond when Hitler invaded Poland?
Yes, I am saying Ukraine should stop fighting. That’s what hoping for an end of the war means. Ukraine should stop fighting and Russia should stop fighting. That’s what peace entails. Or at least a ceasefire. Maybe the peace can come later, after peace talks.
In the meantime, NATO needs to stop sending weapons. Because it can’t hope to supply Ukraine with enough to turn Russia around. And it can’t hope to supply Ukraine with enough to maintain current lines until at least a year or two. So the alternative to stopping the fighting seems to be to prolongue a devastating and drawn out fight.
Is that what you would do if someone invaded your home?
That’s the wrong question in the context. Ukraine was in civil war before the invasion. So either way, you’re faced with a logic of both sides fighting off ‘invaders’. You don’t have to agree with the other side’s claims (the separatists, for you, I imagine), but it’s hard to deny that they would make that claim.
Further, were I empowered to make such decisions in similar circumstances in my country, I would never have (i) flirted with the US/NATO, (ii) given up my nukes only to later hint to NATO that I would host NATO nukes in my country, and (iii) have ignored the international treaties that I had signed, such as at Minsk or in Turkey.
How is this different from someone saying “let’s just give Hitler Poland”
Are you saying the Ukrainians should stop fighting? Is that what you would do if someone invaded your home?
This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
How does mandatory military service relate to helping to fund another country from an invading force?
Should the other European nations not fight against the Nazis when they invaded other countries in order to not ‘prolong’ the war?
I’m comparing rhetorics. Read the post I was replying to and then mine again, please.
What’s the point of comparing rhetoric that has nothing to do with each other? The comment you replied to compared it giving Poland away to Hitler since it both connected by the act of giving in to the demands of a dictator to avoid war, which WW2 has proven doesn’t work. Your comment instead is comparing the act of giving into Putin’s demand is equal to pacifists refusing mandatory military service, which sounds ridiculous.
However it’s not rhetoric. It’s cold hard history. Allowing a fascist dictator to invade a sovereign country led to WW2.
How did the countries (excepting Poland) who currently make up NATO respond when Hitler invaded Poland?
Yes, I am saying Ukraine should stop fighting. That’s what hoping for an end of the war means. Ukraine should stop fighting and Russia should stop fighting. That’s what peace entails. Or at least a ceasefire. Maybe the peace can come later, after peace talks.
In the meantime, NATO needs to stop sending weapons. Because it can’t hope to supply Ukraine with enough to turn Russia around. And it can’t hope to supply Ukraine with enough to maintain current lines until at least a year or two. So the alternative to stopping the fighting seems to be to prolongue a devastating and drawn out fight.
That’s the wrong question in the context. Ukraine was in civil war before the invasion. So either way, you’re faced with a logic of both sides fighting off ‘invaders’. You don’t have to agree with the other side’s claims (the separatists, for you, I imagine), but it’s hard to deny that they would make that claim.
Further, were I empowered to make such decisions in similar circumstances in my country, I would never have (i) flirted with the US/NATO, (ii) given up my nukes only to later hint to NATO that I would host NATO nukes in my country, and (iii) have ignored the international treaties that I had signed, such as at Minsk or in Turkey.
Edit: grammar
They liberated millions of people who were being ethnically cleansed by Ukraine’s Nazis. That required invasion.