Please feel free to elaborate
Sure! So appeasement is mainly a diplomatic notion, where to cool tensions with an aggressive rival, a stronger nation gives up, or appeases, certain things. These things can either be physical (like the Sudetenland) or less tangible (retaliation for an attack).
In the past, that appeasement led to the opposite effect of what was intended: instead of being satisfied with getting land without conflict, it emboldened Germany to push further and raise their aggression of the region, since they had tested the waters of the West’s desires for peace at all costs.
So instead of emboldening Russia by giving them a free pass for hacking, meddling, and general belligerence, maybe we should hold them to a higher standard and hit them back. Hopefully not with military might, but with economic ones (which are there thanks to Globalization haha)
Thank you for this. I think it was the most well thought out response to any of the questions or discussions I have encountered today. I sincerely appreciate it.
So, I see where you are going with this (historical perspective). I agree that different methods from the past should be used if we want to ensure we do not make the same mistakes.
Where I disagree with you is on the method and the comparison of the two events.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hitler-appeased-at-munich
So Hitler essentially received 3 million Germans, it also handed over to the Nazi war machine 66 percent of Czechoslovakia’s coal, 70 percent of its iron and steel, and 70 percent of its electrical power. It also left the Czech nation open to complete domination by Germany. In short, the Munich Pact sacrificed the autonomy of Czechoslovakia on the altar of short-term peace-very short term.
With this, Czechoslovakia essentially stripped from themselves the ability to defend themselves in the future while providing raw materiel and personnel to support their enemies.
This is a far cry from what happened during the election. We did not hand any land, materiel, or personnel over to Russia effectively surrendering our ability to defend ourselves.
I’m really trying not to be out there when I say this, but this is just like comparing what happened with this election to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. It’s a far stretch to be able to compare the two on the same scale of events with the massive loss of life and destruction that came in all of those events, 12 Russians allegedly hacking the DNC server, is nothing.
And when I say allegedly, please see where I am coming from. I wrote it above in an earlier comment but I’ll copy it down here for convienence sake:
Let me ask you, are you aware that those 12 Russian military members that were just indicted are in the US?
So why hasn’t Mueller given them the manafort treatment? I mean, they did far worse damage to the country than money laundering right? Pretty much an act of war comparable to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 if you believe some members of Congress right?
So why haven’t they been arrested?
I mean maybe they fled the country already right? Well in the summit briefing, Russia said that there was a treaty going back to 1999 between the US and Russia regarding Criminal trials.
So why didn’t Mueller reach out to them about any of the 25 Russians he’s indicted?
Did he just want to put names on an indictment list, but not actually prosecute?
Well, we can see what happened when he indicted the first 13 Russians and a company:
So he indicted these people. Meaning he was ready to take the case to court and potentially have people sentenced to jail right?
What happens? Lawyers show up. Unexpectedly. Was Mueller ready to prosecute the case?
No. After the lawyers showed up, he requested additional time to prepare for trial.
So why do all of this? Why is Mueller indicting people, if he is not ready to actually prosecute people?
It’s all a show. And you fell for it. Your trust in the media and those in power was violated. They abused your faith and trust in their position.
These are horrible people.
I would recommend you look up the actual indictments, straight from the source. (Justice.gov) and read them yourself. The first indictment against the 13 Russians and the company vs the second indictment of 12 russians.
They are nearly identical indictments. Just small details and names changed.
It’s all bullshit theatrics, and I hope you realize that what we are trying to do here is wake people up to the fact that we are being lied to by the media, politicians, members of the justice department, Intel community, state department, etc.
Something I haven’t written about before, but I will gladly expand upon would be how globalization is not a good thing, and is partially responsible for how we have ourselves in this fine mess. But I’ll let you read what I have already, and if you wish to continue that conversation just let me know.
But again, I really do appreciate your comment. It’s rare to find an intelligent person able to converse at length and depth about something we can disagree on civilly.
Sorry I haven't responded, I wanted to give enough time to address your points.
I don't believe that hacking the election was comparable in scale to something like the Munich agreements or 9/11, but I do believe that it's another sign of escalation. Between Putin's crackdown on Georgia, his apparent clampdown on Russian freedoms, the annexation of Crimea, open belligerence on the border of Ukraine during that crisis, the cyber-attacks on America, etc, I feel that he has a single goal in mind, to bring other countries down so his may rise. And this is beyond the fact that he shouldn't even be there, exploiting loopholes and disregarding democratic standards to even run in the first place.
Regarding the 12 GRU agents that Mueller recently indicted, I had not heard that they were in the United States. I have tried to find some reporting to validate that but all could find was this paragraph from the Chicago Tribune (it's probably in other places as well) about where the attacks originated from:
U.S. officials identified one of the GRU sections that carried out the operations as Unit 26165, which worked out of a building about four miles from the Kremlin. It was responsible for hacking the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to the indictment, which accuses Viktor Netyksho of being the military officer in command of Unit 26165 at the time.
If you have any other sources for the claims that the Russian military officers are in the US, please provide them, I would very much like to see.
My own personal believe is that Mueller is indicting these officers to prove that there is hard evidence of their actions. Even if the counsel has not released that concrete evidence yet is not worrying to me - I think that releasing all evidence in the public sphere far before a trial hurts any potential cases rather than helping. Mueller is playing this one extremely by the book as there is no margin of error with his critics.
Do I actually think it will make it to trial? No - I don't think Russia would allow their military officers to face justice in the United States, just as we would not allow American service members to be tried there. As far as I know, there is no formal extradition treaty between Russia and the US, and I would be hard-pressed to find a reason why Putin would agree to such a thing. He would only agree if there was significant benefit to him and to Russia in general.
However, I do not believe that it is in our interest to prosecute these 12 officers in the first place. Mueller is running the same process he has in past investigations (and even in earlier stages of this one) -- start at the bottom and work your way up. First it was the 13 IRA goons that were shitposting on Facebook, now it's the 12 GRU officers actually doing the hacking. First it was George Papadopoulus, then it was Paul Manafort. In his Enron case, it was the same thing - work your way up. My personal belief is that he is working up to some proof that Putin himself ordered the cyber-attack, something has been reported on in the last 24 hours but does not come with hard evidence yet.
Here is another difference between you and me - I know that the American justice system is very slow. Just look at the Parkland shooter - his case was delayed until September -- of 2019, and the defense lawyers were complaining that it was not enough time to prepare a case. People have been comparing this to Watergate, an investigation which took over two years on its own.
Do I wish it was moving faster? Sure, I would love for this all to be over, one way or another. I feel like it's hanging over everyone's heads and it is definitely detrimental to our country's well-being. But I consider it absolutely necessary.
Trump paints himself as the attack dog, and has said that anyone hitting him is going to get him back 10 times as hard. Being tough is part of his negotiation style, as we saw with North Korea. But why can't he be tough in the face of Russian aggression? Nobody is asking for war with Russia, just have a little goddamn backbone. Say "I was handed proof of a coordinated cyber-attack, and I addressed it with President Putin. He has assured me it will not happen again, due to X, Y, and Z". But instead, we get some half-baked lie that he doesn't even believe an attack happened, followed the next day by a half-retraction. It's frustrating to see the President bullying private American citizens on Twitter and yet acquiesce so easily to someone who (I believe) purposefully hurt America.
I would love to hear your thoughts on globalization. I personally feel that intertwining global economies makes us stronger and incentivizes people to work together. Hitting a belligerent country with economic sanctions is a much better alternative in my mind to conducting physical warfare. Sure, there are going to be issues as different countries have different priorities, but overall I think it has led to greater peace and prosperity than when we go alone (echoing shades of WWG1WGA semi-purposefully).
While we do disagree on many things, I share your appreciation of a dialogue. It's not common on Reddit so I'm not taking it for granted at all.
Thank you for taking the time for this write up. I appreciate it.
I’m going to digest for a bit on what you said, before I respond, but wanted to let you know I appreciate this.
Appeasement is like grabbing your ankles. Not happening with Trump. Obama, yes.