I spent some time trying to understand what people here are actually saying. Is Sykes saying that negotiating with Hamas is like negotiating with Hitler, and then Serge is saying that the logical implication is what Israel is currently doing, assassinating Hamas diplomats they don’t like while they continue with unrestrained genocide?
This one’s about the Ukraine war, and the upcoming Trump-Putin meeting
Although I guess this same style of rhetoric has also been used with regards to the Gaza genocide too (but I’m not sure if I’ve heard Chamberlain takes specifically, it’s been mostly about “Hamas terrorists” at least from what I’ve seen)… Westerners do be calling everyone Hitler while funneling arms to the guys actually carrying out mass slaughter in plain view.
The current understanding is that Trump’s meeting with Putin on Friday will involve Trump trying to end the conflict by suggesting Russia annex the territory it’s managed to hold from Ukraine. Liberals in particular despise this idea and would prefer the war continue until Russia leaves eastern Ukraine, and even Crimea.
Liberals compare this to when Chamberlain met Hitler to discuss Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. The liberal worldview says that the UK attempted to prevent WW2 by allowing Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia, but then it didn’t work because Germany went to war anyway. Liberal believe Russia is trying to hatch a scheme to conquer all of Europe, despite literally no evidence for this, and that allowing Russia to annex eastern Ukraine won’t prevent…this hypothetical WW3 where Russia destroys all of Europe for some unknown reason.
Sykes is saying that negotiating with Russia right now is the same as Chamberlain meeting Hitler. The implication is that the Ukrainians/ NATO ought to fight to the bitter end, because this is literally Putler. Serge is mocking the logic of saying that negotiation is bad (because that’s famously how you enable Hitler), so instead we ought to fight to the bitter end no matter what (because that’s famously how Hitler decided to go out). Serge is mockingly taking Sykes at his word, and then ‘regretfully’ realizing that the actual conclusion is “We shouldn’t act like we’re helping Hitler, so instead we should act directly like him.”
Thank you for the help. I was having trouble because Hitler did strategically use diplomacy also, as seen in this very example, but I guess once he invaded Poland, that was basically done for.
I spent some time trying to understand what people here are actually saying. Is Sykes saying that negotiating with Hamas is like negotiating with Hitler, and then Serge is saying that the logical implication is what Israel is currently doing, assassinating Hamas diplomats they don’t like while they continue with unrestrained genocide?
This one’s about the Ukraine war, and the upcoming Trump-Putin meeting
Although I guess this same style of rhetoric has also been used with regards to the Gaza genocide too (but I’m not sure if I’ve heard Chamberlain takes specifically, it’s been mostly about “Hamas terrorists” at least from what I’ve seen)… Westerners do be calling everyone Hitler while funneling arms to the guys actually carrying out mass slaughter in plain view.
Okay, it’s just my own fixations getting in the way. So is Serge talking about Ukraine’s attitude, saying that it refuses to engage diplomatically?
The current understanding is that Trump’s meeting with Putin on Friday will involve Trump trying to end the conflict by suggesting Russia annex the territory it’s managed to hold from Ukraine. Liberals in particular despise this idea and would prefer the war continue until Russia leaves eastern Ukraine, and even Crimea.
Liberals compare this to when Chamberlain met Hitler to discuss Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. The liberal worldview says that the UK attempted to prevent WW2 by allowing Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia, but then it didn’t work because Germany went to war anyway. Liberal believe Russia is trying to hatch a scheme to conquer all of Europe, despite literally no evidence for this, and that allowing Russia to annex eastern Ukraine won’t prevent…this hypothetical WW3 where Russia destroys all of Europe for some unknown reason.
Sykes is saying that negotiating with Russia right now is the same as Chamberlain meeting Hitler. The implication is that the Ukrainians/ NATO ought to fight to the bitter end, because this is literally Putler. Serge is mocking the logic of saying that negotiation is bad (because that’s famously how you enable Hitler), so instead we ought to fight to the bitter end no matter what (because that’s famously how Hitler decided to go out). Serge is mockingly taking Sykes at his word, and then ‘regretfully’ realizing that the actual conclusion is “We shouldn’t act like we’re helping Hitler, so instead we should act directly like him.”
Thank you for the help. I was having trouble because Hitler did strategically use diplomacy also, as seen in this very example, but I guess once he invaded Poland, that was basically done for.