10-16-2024, 06:24 AM
This post was last modified 10-16-2024, 06:25 AM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: grammar
I look at unilateral peace plans as 'placeholders' for negotiation starting points. (I assume that both sides are tiring of this.)
Whoever it is that wants to leverage any such 'peace' against NATO "membership" is not thinking clearly.
NATO is a military-focused body, whose existence hinges on the deterrence of a "military threat."
It precludes "peaceful" ends because it exists by/for/and because of 'fear of war.'
NATO is an anachronism we inherited from the cold war... it's a bad idea to cater to it... and very costly too.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think negotiating peace under any 'threat' is mostly a losing proposition.
The most effective time to establish a treaty of peace, is during peace-time...
Once war has begun, peace needs to move a mountain (an angry, wounded, and resentful mountain.)
Peace is achievable (it almost always is) but there are some 'concessions' that will only ensure the peace doesn't last forever.
(That's because the people aren't making the concession, they only pay for them.)
Money is a big motivator in the "decision-makers" ultimate posture... in modern war, it's those who can afford to endure it that usually win.
(Which is kind of sad, since it's never their money that pays for it - nor do they usually face the danger of it.)
Ukraine is no bastion of freedom and democracy, and neither is Russia... so this ends up being a hugely wasteful war that's never going to "solve" anything.
Whoever it is that wants to leverage any such 'peace' against NATO "membership" is not thinking clearly.
NATO is a military-focused body, whose existence hinges on the deterrence of a "military threat."
It precludes "peaceful" ends because it exists by/for/and because of 'fear of war.'
NATO is an anachronism we inherited from the cold war... it's a bad idea to cater to it... and very costly too.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think negotiating peace under any 'threat' is mostly a losing proposition.
The most effective time to establish a treaty of peace, is during peace-time...
Once war has begun, peace needs to move a mountain (an angry, wounded, and resentful mountain.)
Peace is achievable (it almost always is) but there are some 'concessions' that will only ensure the peace doesn't last forever.
(That's because the people aren't making the concession, they only pay for them.)
Money is a big motivator in the "decision-makers" ultimate posture... in modern war, it's those who can afford to endure it that usually win.
(Which is kind of sad, since it's never their money that pays for it - nor do they usually face the danger of it.)
Ukraine is no bastion of freedom and democracy, and neither is Russia... so this ends up being a hugely wasteful war that's never going to "solve" anything.
