So their options are:
a) surrender
b) die
c) be subjugated
Ukrainians are free to choose. They don’t have to pick a) if they prefer b) or c).
That’s just sophistry. We’re done here.
Man it is really something how Keeed is just constantly trolling all the innocent victims in this thread.
“Whatever it wants” being crushed by Russia or becoming a subservient buffer state.
3 Likes
I mean the posts you quoted does seem to be more or less what has happened. I’m saying if the US never got involved, going back ten years or so, Ukraine could have pursued whatever strategy they wanted. Obviously certain strategies would have been more or less less well received by Russia. But if the US doesn’t get involved it’s a matter between Ukraine and Russia.
My perception of Keeed’s argument is that he primarily fears nuclear escalation. The nuclear threat increases the longer the war goes on and Ukraine successfully resists. US involvement prolongs the war by enabling Ukrainian resistance. It’s believable that his preference is for Ukraine to stop fighting and negotiate a settlement before the war escalates to a nuclear level, that removing US support makes Ukraine more likely to negotiate.
Of course it is possible that US support for Ukraine is seen as a promise of retaliation if Russia uses nukes and serves as a deterrent against Russian nuclear escalation. Putin can live with Russia being treated as a pariah state, but perhaps doesn’t want to get nuked.
It’s really such a weak tight position too. We’ve had plenty of conflicts during the cold war of this exact nature that didn’t lead to nuclear war. We’ve managed constant nuclear threats from North Korea for decades without appeasement strategies or actual nuclear weapons being used. USA has plenty of reasons that it is in the country’s national interest to support Ukraine, and very little reason to fear escalation into a nuclear holocaust any more than it had with those other conflicts.
All Keed has said in response is that Russia has perceived this Ukraine conflict to be in their core national interests whereas Afghanistan wasn’t and Vietnam wasn’t for the USA. It’s a totally subjective position not really provable or falsifiable, it’s also subjective that they would use nuclear weapons even if true.
I mean it is falsifiable, just not right now. I think that if Russia is faced with the prospect of total loss of Donbass and/or Crimea they would escalate as much as it takes to prevent that from happening. If it comes to that hopefully I’m wrong.
I’m interested in finding out!
1 Like
Russia has already faced total defeat in a proxy war with the US without going nuclear, but you expect us to take your gut feelings more seriously than actual history.
I don’t expect you to do anything. You think I’m trying to convince you? I’m here for the lurkers!
1 Like
You are offering them nothing worth taking seriously
1 Like
Again, complelling stuff
Must we do this here?
speaks to the witness’ credibility and expertise
4 Likes
Lurkers should be reminded about a recalcitrant position despite all evidence to the contrary imo.
Shock doctrine comes for Ukraine
The CEPR team thus seems to imagine a Ukrainian society and economy adjusting to the shock of the war, assisted by high tech and NGOs, but with the Ukrainian state itself pruned back as far as possible. And this vision becomes explicit when it comes to the question of deregulation.
… For example, the government dramatically loosened labour market regulations (e.g. firms can fire workers relatively easily and unilaterally suspend elements of labour contracts; workers who would like to quit do not need to give advance notice to their employers). This approach should be applied to other areas. Land regulation, access to electricity, and other infrastructure should be streamlined to allow easier reallocation for firms. … Perhaps, the government can appoint a high-level official (e.g. ‘deregulation chief’) to coordinate and push for deregulation.