Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
It is not revisionism.
Not only did Britain and France not do enough to oppose Nazism, they actually gave diplomatic cover for Hitler's aggression against Czechoslovakia. And Poland and Romania together prevented the Red Army from helping Czechoslovakia. From the Soviet perspective, the position of the UK and France was that they were absolutely fine with Hitler marching east and the Soviet Union facing him alone. So they looked out for themselves.
I know, I know. You'd prefer that in doing so, they didn't deny any part of Poland to Hitler. That's your prerogative, I guess.
What I find interesting is that Trump's Gaza policy is just Bush in a more unhinged package. Trump floated the idea of having US troops violate the region, this being yet another millitary misdadventure in the Middle East with a terrorist attack as the casus beli. Trump even repeated Bush era talking points about it ''helping'' the people who live there.
And the facinating thing is that the MAGA crowd who spend years swearing to us they hated Bush for his foreign wars(despite them likely having supported it at the time) all seemed to agree Trump's ideas was great. Almost as if they're a bunch of NPC's who need to get their talking points from daddy Trump before having an opinion.
I'd prefer that they didn't ally with Hitler to carve Europe up between them, assisting them with joint conquest and promising them more. Which is what happened.
Describing overt Nazi collaboration as heroic resistance is some wild revisionism, but I suppose it's consistent with how you've approached Russia's latest conquest-- reimagining the world's biggest sponsor of far-right and neo-fascist movements worldwide (with the single largest Nazi paramilitary under its control) as somehow fighting against Nazism.
Sure. This is true and a problem.
Unfortunately, there a major practical problem. Russia is squatting on a large chunk of Ukraine's territory and grinding out a very slow advance over more. Russia will not be evicted unless someone very substantial (the USA or Europe) commits a military force in support of Ukraine. Russia is not going to give up anything it has easily, because it's winning - even if incredibly slowly and expensively.
So what's it to be? Commit troops in support of Ukraine, or a peace treaty?
A peace treaty is effectively going to have to be a compromise. A compromise looks very much like it will have to involve Ukraine permanently conceding territory, and at minimum that's going to be Crimea. It might be able to fudge an acceptance of the status quo for the other four oblasts in partial occupation, without formally ceding them.
As a repudiation of the UN principle that countries should not take territory by force, Ukraine ceding land is appalling. On the other hand, what better option is genuinely available?
Sure.
And Ukraine might be willing to settle for that if it gets NATO peacekeepers on the ground and a NATO guarantee to actually properly join the next defensive war.
Ukraine can reasonably argue that ceding land would not represent a solution at all, unless accompanied by real guarantees-- emboldened by success, Russia would inevitably invade again in a few years. It's what they did last time they were allowed to seize territory. And the time before that.
Option one would be for Ukraine's backers to pursue economic isolation of Russia alongside the military assistance they need to defend themselves. So far the material assistance they've provided to Ukraine has been insufficient and late, and the economic isolation of Russia has been staggered and half-assed, all while still funnelling billions to Russia for their oil addiction.
Option two would be a defensive pact between Ukraine and other Eastern European countries that are threatened by Russia-- separately from NATO.
Option three would be a cessation of hostilities allowing Russia to hold some chunk of the territory but without legally recognising its ownership, with a view to regaining it through diplomatic means in future. Similar to the status of Crimea from 2014 to 2022, or Transnistria, or Abkhazia.
‘Numerous signs of torture’: a Ukrainian journalist’s detention and death in Russian prison
The Guardian, working with media partners, has tracked down first-hand accounts to reconstruct Viktoriia Roshchyna’s final months
www.theguardian.com
Journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna was captured by Russian forces in summer 2023 when she was reporting in Zaporizhzhia. Her body was handed to Ukrainian authorities alongside war casualties in February 2025 (wrongly labelled but later identified).
She had been severely starved, repeatedly stabbed, electrocuted, & waterboarded. Her body was missing it's brain, larynx and eyes.
