I mean…Russia is interested in peace. Everyone is always interested in peace. Countries don’t take war purely for love of war. The difference between parties in a conflict is the terms on which that peace is desired; war is a tool to coerce another into accepting one’s desired terms.
This is not to dispute Kallas’s point about faster rearmament being a good idea.
I mean…Russia is interested in peace. Everyone is always interested in peace. Countries don’t take war purely for love of war. The difference between parties in a conflict is the terms on which that peace is desired; war is a tool to coerce another into accepting one’s desired terms.
That is a really stupid thing to say. Russia is maybe interested in everybody elses surrender, but they are not interested in peace. As we all know, because they’ve started this war.
No, I genuinely don’t think they are interested in peace at all. You don’t indoctrinate kindergardeners to die for the motherland if you aren’t planning to have wars going forward.
Planning to have war doesn’t mean that one is after war. You just hope to negotiate that peace you want using war. More power or territory or wealth or whatever. If you could force the other guy to give them to you sans war, you’d do it.
… History shows that taking Russia’s promises of peace at face value is an extremely risky proposition. Historically, such decisions have inevitably led to catastrophe and further bloodshed since the underlying problems of Russian aggressive imperial policies have never been solved. True accountability was never part of the equation. The fate of Chechnya shows one of the most clear-cut scenarios of Russia’s political tactics: sue for peace, recover its military strength, and come back for a second decisive attack. The Chechens fought Russia to near-defeat in the first war, then believed Moscow’s safety assurances. In two years, the Chechen capital was all but obliterated, and Chechnya was entirely subjugated by Moscow …
I mean…Russia is interested in peace. Everyone is always interested in peace. Countries don’t take war purely for love of war. The difference between parties in a conflict is the terms on which that peace is desired; war is a tool to coerce another into accepting one’s desired terms.
This is not to dispute Kallas’s point about faster rearmament being a good idea.
That is a really stupid thing to say. Russia is maybe interested in everybody elses surrender, but they are not interested in peace. As we all know, because they’ve started this war.
No, I genuinely don’t think they are interested in peace at all. You don’t indoctrinate kindergardeners to die for the motherland if you aren’t planning to have wars going forward.
Planning to have war doesn’t mean that one is after war. You just hope to negotiate that peace you want using war. More power or territory or wealth or whatever. If you could force the other guy to give them to you sans war, you’d do it.
There will be no peace as long as Putin is in power. Any ‘peace agreement’ will end up in a new war after some time.
Edit:
Russia’s lies about peace: 30 years of broken promises in international negotiations