🏳️‍⚧️ Edward (any)

Like we did appeasement in the 40s already, it was a bad strategy.

No no. It was a great strategy. Germany went to war. It was just that Germany also went to war with us, which wasn’t what we wanted.

Presumably the reasons for the initial attack still exist

Then… they failed? You’re saying that if they win, they fail. Or at least, they can’t win hard enough to actually get what they want.

You’re also assuming Russia wants territory. If Russia wanted, say, Ukraine not being admitted to NATO, and they can get a peace that ensures that, then there isn’t a reason for them to invade again. Or if Russia wanted UKR to stop shelling the eastern regions, then annexing just them might stop that, in which case, they don’t have any reason to invade again.

But why? Why would Russia invade again in a few years? What’s the logic behind that? Just “putler bad”, “russia bad”. Or is there any actual reasoning on why?

Right, Seems so. They only passed the Romanian border on the 17th.

The USSR “invaded” 16 days after the Germans. At that time, there was no Poland. The Government had been interned in Romania.

In what way is it “commonly regarded”? Where? Who? WTF are you talking about? I genuinely want to know.

Read a book. I already recommended you one.

They did, after they finally realized what they had done. Read The Cold War and Its Origins.

Indeed, actions speak louder than words. And what Britain and France did, was help Germany invade Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. And ensured Fascism would win in Spain. When Adolf wanted an army, a navy, an airforce, they gave it to him.

Appeasement worked. Germany went to war.

In justification of the crucifixion of Czechoslovakia at Munich it was said that [the Soviet Union] could not be trusted and that her assistance would not be worth much in any case. On the points there could be honest difference of opinion, but not about the diplomatic record. Certainly the Czech Government did not doubt [the Soviet Union]'s sincerity. At a session of the Harris Institute at the University of Chicago in August 1939 I asked President [of Czechoslovakia] Benes whether [the Soviet Union] would have supported him had he decided to fight in September 1938. He replied, without an instant’s hesitation: “There was never any doubt in my mind that [the Soviet Union] would aid us by all the ways open to her, but I did not dare to fight with [Soviet] aid alone, because I knew that the British and French Governments would make out of my country another Spain.”

Denna F. Flemming; The Cold War and Its Origins, 1917-1960; Vol 1, 1917-1950; Page 84

All the [the Soviet Union] is just replacing Russia (the author likes using Russia instead of SU), it changes the quote in no way.

Ok so, assuming the Russian army is the laughing stock of the world, then why isn’t the Ukrainian Army an even bigger laughing stock?

For a long time I heard one thing after another about how incompetent the Russian army is. For 1 and a half years, the most incompetent, laughing stock of the world, army has been… losing?

My reaction to your comment.

Here is the link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

Russia leaving is apparently never an option when they talk about possible solutions

Yes… it isn’t. Thats how reality works. Russia isn’t going to just up and leave. They aren’t going to have thousands of their own people killed and then just… nothing. They have goals, they want to meet them, and if not then at least get somewhat of a victory. The people in Russia aren’t going to like “oh, we just left”. I don’t fucking understand how people can say “the war ends when russia [just up and leaves]”. This isn’t fantasy land, that isn’t how it works. Russia will leave, if Ukraine negotiates a peace with them. If Russia wants land then UK has to negotiate for that not to happen.

This is the problem with “tankie”, nobody can actually define it.

You, attempting to refute that it’s “woke” but for liberals, proved that it is “woke” for liberals.

They are not socialist. They are “Social Democratic”, capitalism, but the workers get a bigger share. The parasites known as Capitalists, or Burg… fucking french… Bourgeoisie, are still a thing. The workers do not own the tools.

Thank you to all the [heksagonale bjørne] that are making my day much better.

Very interesting, thank you.

the eleventh hour american proposal

Not exactly “eleventh hour”, it was submitted on the 29th of Sept, 4 days after the Albanian (et al.) proposal on the 25th of Sept. A truely eleventh hour proposal can be seen with the Saudi Arabian A/L.638 submitted on the day of the vote (25 Oct.)

Also… From A/PV.1976:

Mr. MALILE (Albania):
[…]
73. The explanations we have heard here concerning draft resolution A/L.632 are completely unfounded. This draft is basically an integral part of the anti-Chinese attempt of the United States of America to legalize its “two Chinas” plot and is designed to sabotage the approval of the draft resolution of the 23 States, including Albania [referring to A/L.630, which would expel the RoC and invite the PRC. It became the draft that was adopted]. The content of such a draft is illegal. It seeks to open the way to the United States manoeuvre aimed at involving the United Nations in the domestic affairs of the Chinese people, which is the aim of draft resolution A/L.633 [keeping the RoC in the UN, but replacing it with PRC on Security Council]. As has been clearly pointed out, that draft resolution is in flagrant contradiction with Article 18 of the Charter. It goes without saying that the Article cannot be applied to our draft resolution.

I looked into it a little. The meeting records (see A/PV.1976 below the video) states that they are voting on A/L.632, which is:

The General Assembly,
Recalling the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations,
Decides that any proposal in the General Assembly which would result in depriving the Republic of China of representation in the United Nations is an important question under Article 18 of the Charter.

Article 18, §2:

Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the member present and voting.

So, indirectly they are trying to split them. But the vote is not directly on that.