The Student Room Group

Ukraine peace plan, could it work?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by 2WheelGod
"President Putin has claimed over many years of his dream to reassemble the old Soviet Union."
Requiring aggressive, military expansion, invading neighbouring countries.
"He has complained about Nato encroachment on Russia’s borders thereby creating security concerns for them"
Russia already had NATO countries on its borders that have not been invaded. And remember that NATO has never expressed "a dream to invade neighbouring countries" that Putin has.
"He has complained about the treatment of ‘Russian speaking peoples"
An accusation that, even if it were true, does not justify invading a sovereign state and reducing it to rubble, killing thousands of innocent civilians - many of them "Russian speaking".
So to sum up... you don't know why Putin invaded Ukraine, but you support him anyway, even though none of his "reasons" are acceptable or reasonable.
Fair enough.

Really the last point was because of the rus backed uprising in 2014 which created a reason/false flag for the 2022 rus invasion. Prior to 2014, there was a reasonable mix and ukraine had held a few votes to see what should happen and the majority wanted to stay in ukraine. After 2014, the area became an ongoing war zone with local rus backed warlords who downed MH17 and generally made life much harder for the local population ...

So you create problems in a border area then say youre invading to sort them out. Its been done before ...
Original post by 2WheelGod
"President Putin has claimed over many years of his dream to reassemble the old Soviet Union."
Requiring aggressive, military expansion, invading neighbouring countries.
"He has complained about Nato encroachment on Russia’s borders thereby creating security concerns for them"
Russia already had NATO countries on its borders that have not been invaded. And remember that NATO has never expressed "a dream to invade neighbouring countries" that Putin has.
"He has complained about the treatment of ‘Russian speaking peoples"
An accusation that, even if it were true, does not justify invading a sovereign state and reducing it to rubble, killing thousands of innocent civilians - many of them "Russian speaking".
So to sum up... you don't know why Putin invaded Ukraine, but you support him anyway, even though none of his "reasons" are acceptable or reasonable.
Fair enough.

Yes,’i support him anyway.
Original post by Wired_1800
Yes,’i support him anyway.

Why?
Original post by 2WheelGod
Why?

I have explained it but you dismissed the explanation.
Original post by Wired_1800
I have explained it but you dismissed the explanation.

That's kinda the point.
You gave three reasons why you think Putin is justified in his invasion. Each of those reasons is fatally flawed. Yet you still support him
So, given that - why do you still support him?
Original post by 2WheelGod
That's kinda the point.
You gave three reasons why you think Putin is justified in his invasion. Each of those reasons is fatally flawed. Yet you still support him
So, given that - why do you still support him?

They are flawed to you, but not to me.

If Nato’s expansion touches Russia’s borders, President Putin is justified imho to do whatever is necessary. Yes, i recognise that there are other Nato countries that currently border Russia. That’s my criticism of President Putin. He should have responded when the first country wanted to join the alliance.
Original post by Wired_1800
They are flawed to you, but not to me.
If Nato’s expansion touches Russia’s borders, President Putin is justified imho to do whatever is necessary. Yes, i recognise that there are other Nato countries that currently border Russia. That’s my criticism of President Putin. He should have responded when the first country wanted to join the alliance.

So you think that Putin should have already invaded all bordering NATO countries. And once that country was taken, he would then have another NATO country on the new border, requiring another war.
I thought you only want peace, but here you are calling for an endless war of aggressive expansion and conquest.
Some consistency please.

If you believe that simply having a country with a treaty with other countries on your border is justification for invading them, then your version of the world would be a very violent place.

The reality is that Putin knows that if he did attack NATO, he would have his ass handed to him, and even he isn't stupidcrazy enough to go nuclear. So his only option was to not invade NATO, even though he would clearly love to.
He's basically a weak bully.
Original post by 2WheelGod
So you think that Putin should have already invaded all bordering NATO countries. And once that country was taken, he would then have another NATO country on the new border, requiring another war.
I thought you only want peace, but here you are calling for an endless war of aggressive expansion and conquest.
Some consistency please.
If you believe that simply having a country with a treaty with other countries on your border is justification for invading them, then your version of the world would be a very violent place.
The reality is that Putin knows that if he did attack NATO, he would have his ass handed to him, and even he isn't stupidcrazy enough to go nuclear. So his only option was to not invade NATO, even though he would clearly love to.
He's basically a weak bully.

This is silly and you know it. No sane country would have a hostile alliance on her borders. The Americans, Chinese, French, Brazilians, Nigerians, Indians, Australians, British etc, wont tolerate it.

If President Putin had devastated the first country that tried to enter Nato, others probably wont have joined.

I said that I wanted peace for the current conflict but I am far from a pacifist. Trust me, I’d be happy to nuke any country that threatened Britain.
Original post by Wired_1800
This is silly and you know it. No sane country would have a hostile alliance on her borders. The Americans, Chinese, French, Brazilians, Nigerians, Indians, Australians, British etc, wont tolerate it.
If President Putin had devastated the first country that tried to enter Nato, others probably wont have joined.
I said that I wanted peace for the current conflict but I am far from a pacifist. Trust me, I’d be happy to nuke any country that threatened Britain.

Awesome, we all die in hellfire because you can't keep it in your pants, I'd applaud but my radioactive hands have fallen off 🤠
Original post by StriderHort
Awesome, we all die in hellfire because you can't keep it in your pants, I'd applaud but my radioactive hands have fallen off 🤠

I am not trigger happy but I understand that British lives must be protected at all costs. I bet the Russians, Chinese and Americans probably understand that too.
Original post by Ambitious1999
The Ukraine civil war has been going on for nearly 3 years now and it’s costing countless lives a lot of money in aid and weapons supplies that the west can barely afford.
If Ukraine was split down the middle following the course of the Dnipro river, Ukraine could keep the western half and Russia could have the eastern half. The city of Kviv will be divided by the border with West Kviv going to Ukraine and the East Kviv going to Russia. After all that’s how peace was brough to Timor by having a separate East Timor. In this case peace will be achieved by having a separate East Ukraine.
Could this be the solution for peace?


It'd been about 2wks since you posted this and I noticed that you hadn't been back since. Did you have any thoughts on the near-200 replies made regarding your scheme?
Original post by Wired_1800
I am not trigger happy but I understand that British lives must be protected at all costs. I bet the Russians, Chinese and Americans probably understand that too.

It's the 'at all costs' bit that always worries me, likewise when people say 'all options are on the table!' I get the need to posture, but couldn't they at least rule out the illegal, genocidal and outright repulsive options?

Your willingness to resort to nuclear world ending weapons over pretty much any vague threat is a bit crazy, and you obv have a pretty wide range of what you consider a threat.
Original post by StriderHort
It's the 'at all costs' bit that always worries me, likewise when people say 'all options are on the table!' I get the need to posture, but couldn't they at least rule out the illegal, genocidal and outright repulsive options?
Your willingness to resort to nuclear world ending weapons over pretty much any vague threat is a bit crazy, and you obv have a pretty wide range of what you consider a threat.

Yes, I understand that there needs to be a measured response to active threats. However, there needs to be clarity of purpose and resolve that no enemy state can threaten British lives.

I don't think it is reasonable to simply wipe a country off the face of the earth because there are political disagreements. I think there should be level of threats that should require immediate and decisive actions from indirect responses such as sanctions to preemptive strikes, boots on the ground and then the place of no return.

For example, the Falklands War wont have resorted to the use of nuclear warheads but the President Putin’s current sabre-rattling threats should see our nuclear forces at heightened alert for a quick response with devastating impact.

My view is that British communities should sleep well at night with the full confidence that their safety is secured under my leadership. I may not have solutions to all their problems but they would be guaranteed that their security is assured.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by StriderHort
It's the 'at all costs' bit that always worries me, likewise when people say 'all options are on the table!' I get the need to posture, but couldn't they at least rule out the illegal, genocidal and outright repulsive options?
Your willingness to resort to nuclear world ending weapons over pretty much any vague threat is a bit crazy, and you obv have a pretty wide range of what you consider a threat.

You can't really avoid illegal and technically genocidal options when waging war.
Original post by Rakas21
You can't really avoid illegal and technically genocidal options when waging war.

We're not talking about waging war, we're talking about the conscious actions to start one. ie 'I think that country looked at me funny, that's all I need to nuke them'
Original post by StriderHort
We're not talking about waging war, we're talking about the conscious actions to start one. ie 'I think that country looked at me funny, that's all I need to nuke them'

There are checks and balances in place to avoid such reckless actions from happening in this country. No Parliament would approve the wipe out of country X because their leader laughed at our PM’s funny shoes.
Original post by Wired_1800
There are checks and balances in place to avoid such reckless actions from happening in this country. No Parliament would approve the wipe out of country X because their leader laughed at our PM’s funny shoes.

Parliamentary approval is not required in most states. It's an executive action.

The larger deterrent is that the likes of the US and China have made it clear that if Russia or Iran and the like go nuts and fire then they will solve the problem themselves (i.e. Iran and Russia would be decimated militarily).
Original post by Rakas21
Parliamentary approval is not required in most states. It's an executive action.
The larger deterrent is that the likes of the US and China have made it clear that if Russia or Iran and the like go nuts and fire then they will solve the problem themselves (i.e. Iran and Russia would be decimated militarily).

Yes, some countries need to have those checks and balances in place.
Original post by Wired_1800
There are checks and balances in place to avoid such reckless actions from happening in this country. No Parliament would approve the wipe out of country X because their leader laughed at our PM’s funny shoes.

But there are no such controls in Russia, and you claim you support Putin using every means available if he feels triggered by something another country might be thinking about.
Original post by 2WheelGod
But there are no such controls in Russia, and you claim you support Putin using every means available if he feels triggered by something another country might be thinking about.

That’s not what I said.

Quick Reply