The coming Spring offensive

Foreign affairs
#21

Negotiations to end a war should deal with the reason that war is being fought. It should not be just appeasements to either side. You are right, though, which leaders would be negotiating and whose eyes would be wide open at the time of Hitler’s aggression and ethnic cleansing. It might be too much to hope that negotiations would be done with wisdom to expose all nuances of the conditions of the war on both sides and then agree without appeasement to the PTB.

Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried over and over again while the war goes on.

1 Like
#22

No two situations are alike, so we can’t know.
And if Hitler had wanted to negotiate to end the war, who knows what would have resulted? It could have been a worse outcome, but maybe not.
If a cessation of hostilities could have been negotiated, thousands of lives could have been saved. Both WW1 and WW2 were devastating bloodbaths, for both soldiers and civilians.

1 Like
#23

And…I don’t believe that dead and enslaved Jews could have been ignored, but I am not so sure about that. There was so much that was ignored throughout Hitler’s evil tyranny.

There could have been negotiations to stop the war and the atrocity of the Holocaust might have continued…ignored. That would have been evil itself; to have stopped the war, but let the final solution be continued in Europe.

There seems to be no governments that are wise and good when it comes to their foreign affairs with non-allies, and sometimes with allies. That is a human condition writ large.

1 Like
#24

Why are you insulted and belittled by my questions? I ask them precisely because I do continue to “fail to understand [your] concerns that this is a war that must not be”? The war is. That is what you fail to understand of my concerns: that the war is a reality, and envisioning its cessation requires a willingness to talk military turkey. Your saying, over and over again, that this war must not be, or should not be, or should not have been offers nothing even to disagree with. Of course war “must not be”. Of course humanity should be peace-loving. But what is that if not wishful thinking - just wishing war to go away?

Why should it be “insulting” to you when I point out that neither you - nor the somebody you link to - offer any thought as to how that wish can be realized, at what cost to whom and with what consequences. If anything, my pressing you on this shows my persisting faith and trust in rational discourse to test one’s opinion. Hardly “belittling”.

#25

Could you cite any peace agreement which demonstrates how you think negotiations should “deal with” the reason that the war is being fought?

#26

Claire, first, the war that must not be is a global war, which would drag us and other nations in to it. China, Iran and probably India would side with Russia. NATO allies would probably side with Ukraine. Do you think that might be a probable conclusion? It is WWIII that must not be, because it will do so much damage to the world, and will be a wonderful opportunity for the Chosen Few (elite global oligarchy) to seize for ultimate power, if anything is left to control.

My conclusion is that the current war must end, before it turns into WWIII. That is why negotiations should have no time limit, and that is why I want the US to wind down its presence in the current war and to “strongly encourage” China to wind down any presence in the current war, as well.

I recognize that there has, for the last year, been war between Ukraine and Russia, which is an obvious proxy war between the US and Russia…and allies on each side. It is continuing whether any want to be aware of it or not, and I am not only aware, but very concerned about its implications for the near future.

Discussing this does not require a willingness to “talk military turkey” for non-military informed people. It could require a willingness to discuss current foreign affairs and historical and current relationships between allies …and non-allies. But even that is not necessary. To discuss this war and one that might spring from it, which involves global powers, it is only necessary to be aware and concerned about what it means for us now, how our government may be betraying us, our confidence in our Commander In Chief and military leaders and simply our fears, as older members of our families, who remember our past and who worry about what escalation would mean for the future.

I am fairly certain that if some members want to talk full-blown “military turkey” they will join you in that discussion. It is not what I want to spend much time on, but I will definitely read the posts in that thread.

Yes, I do depend on people, whom I trust, to research, consider and report those considerations, along with the news, to listeners and readers. Talk among my contacts, which are few, are about what we must do to prepare for multiple and possible futures for the US, the world and for our families. This war and a greater war, this economy, this global supply system and the fragile safety in the health and welfare of US citizenry and our community is what tends to take precedence in our conversations.

I will try to understand that you seem unable to realize that sometimes your replies carry insults and often your phrasing implies that my sources, my reasoning, and my conclusions are inferior to yours.

1 Like
#27

“It is WW3 that must not be, because it will do so much damage to the world, and it will be a wonderful opportunity for the…global oligarchy to seize power…”
Good description of what is fundamentally important here - the dangerous possible motives for, and consequences of, this war.
Considering the character of our present “leaders” - criminals who are already intent on destroying us - those consequences could very well be the entire purpose of escalating the war to begin with.
Focusing on military strategies is an indication that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

1 Like