Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Ukraine Unleashed: How A New Administration Can End The War" video.

It very often does, in fact. It's called compromise.
9
@jaxonl7810 Now Chechnya is at peace. That's what happened.
3
@mormacil Making concessions is not surrender. Appeasement is not surrender. There is more to this than semantics though. In plain terms, the West must make concessions to Russia in order to bring peace and ensure Ukraine's future. Constantly fuelling the fire is exactly the wrong thing to be doing.
3
@mikedon5205 You're wrong. You should read the essay he wrote shortly before the invasion, which makes his position very clear. However regrettable it may be, he accepts Ukraine's decision to turn its face towards the West - but it can't have Crimea and Donbass. And it can't join NATO.
3
@jaxonl7810 Yup. I am old. And the ignorance and stupidity of mankind does make me pretty sad!
2
@mormacil I dislike historical analogies but it was obvious that Hitler was after much, much more than Austria whereas it is pretty clear that all Putin wants is Crimea and the heavily Russian parts of Eastern Ukraine. Russia's contribution to peace will be to stop fighting once it's got what wants - which it very nearly has.
2
@mormacil Why don't we get out of this silly tangle and get down to brass tacks? I dislike the use of the word "appeasement" because it seeks to draw comparisons between Putin's actions in the present and Hitler's actions in the past. This comparison, with all its ramifications, serves no purpose other than to attempt to demonise Putin. In conflating appeasement with compromise I was merely using a rhetorical trick (hyperbole) in order to try to draw attention to this gross discrepancy. Granting Putin a measure of his quite reasonable demands will bring this dreadful conflict to an end and hopefully much reduce the chances of entering a worldwide conflict which will benefit no-one.
2
@jaxonl7810 Well you are young and I daresay foolish - but I like your hat!
1
@Theokondak I think there's a chance he will heavily arm Ukraine against the possibility of future Russian incursions if it agrees to give up Crimea and Donbass.
1
@mikedon5205 I wouldn't disagree. This is essentially a war between two rival gangs, but sadly is has been made much worse by the fact that another gang wants to muscle in and take over the action when it's all over.
1
@mikedon5205 I don't think that would be such a good deal!
1
@mormacil It is if it stops wanting more.
1
@mikedon5205 I agree - and so does Putin. The trouble is that he doesn't think Donbass and Crimea are properly parts of Ukraine.
1
@mormacil Fair enough. Why don't you look up "hyperbole"?
1
@swirvinbirds1971 For a start, you cannot trust the results of any referendum or election in either Ukraine or Russia. Secondly the people of Donbass and Crimea had reason to regret that "decision" as it became clear that the Kiev government was pursuing policies of not only neglecting their needs but actively oppressing the Russian elements of the population. Thirdly -as you rightly say - the agreement was made not by Putin, but by a predecessor and in the confusion of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The people of Crimea have generally been very satisfied with the results after Russia retook the peninsula in 2014. Putin has invested billions in it, as he is already doing in those parts of Donbass now back in Russia's possession.
1
@swirvinbirds1971 They have had plenty of opportunity to regret that decision. And as you rightly say Putin never agreed, it was a foolish decision taken by a predecessor.
1
@swirvinbirds1971 Where does this 80% come from? What does it refer to?
1
@swirvinbirds1971 Democracy in Ukraine and Russia is pretty much a sham, I agree. When Ukraine is in charge Ukraine wins, and when Russia is in charge, Russia wins.
1
@swirvinbirds1971 I think it very much matters what Putin thinks.
1
@swirvinbirds1971 As Stalin said: "It isn't votes that count. It's who counts the votes that counts."
1
@mormacil But the situation here is no way binary. It is extremely nuanced.
1
@mormacil Perhaps if you explained more clearly?
1
@mormacil This is descending into an argument about semantics. The two words "appeasement" and "compromise" meld into each other. I would suggest that before 1938 they were much closer together in meaning than they are today. Appeasement became compromise's evil brother because it was a word appended to the political movement in Britain at that time which sought to appease Hitler by making concessions, in the hope that this compromise would prevent him from further territorial excesses. This failed, of course, but there is no reason to suppose that similar concessions made to Putin today would fail today simply because of an accident of language.
1
@mormacil So we're back to hyperbole again.
1
I really don't think there is any way Ukraine can win this war. If push comes to shove Putin has the nuclear option, and he will use it if his situation becomes dire enough. The best way out is that outlined in a recent letter to the Financial Times, whose signatories included former British and US Ambassadors to Russia. Russia should be granted Crimea and territories in Eastern Ukraine with long Russian histories and large Russian populations. The remainder of Ukraine could then become an entirely united country, free to develop into a true , Westernised democracy. The alternative is a lengthy, draining conflict which Russia will probably win in any case - or at least obtain by force what it would be preferable to grant it by treaty.
1