xor

Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn’t viable now.

All I’m arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with, really

Well yes, I am aware that Russia has violated numerous treaties. But I’m not arguing for the treaties to be the same, not even for a peace treaty to happen now. Nor am I saying we shouldn’t give some portion of that money to Ukraine.

Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?

I feel like I’m being pretty clear that I don’t think anything close to this, no? But your questions seem to be on the basis that I do.

The point I am actually making is that at some point in the future there will be some form of peace negotiations to end the war. That’s not coming from a Trump-esque “peace now because I say so” angle, but from a “every conflict ends in some form of settlement eventually” angle. The fact that this money would act as significant leverage in that scenario means that this isn’t just magic free money, but a tradeoff to be made.

That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong tradeoff, necessarily, just that to actually decide whether or not that’s the case, you do need to consider that it is one.

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here, are you arguing that we should aim to keep the war going indefinitely? Because the only way a war ends without a negotiated settlement is with the total dissolution of one of the sides in the war. I don’t see Ukraine fully annexing Russia any time soon, frankly.

The war does need to end sometime, even if that time isn’t now, and creating a peace treaty that’s self-enforcing is the only way that works. If using that money as leverage (e.g. the funds are gradually unlocked as the treaty phases progress) makes a lasting peace viable that otherwise wouldn’t be, then it’s an option worth considering.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily the wrong choice to give the money to Ukraine, just pointing out that there is a tradeoff to be made.

I think their point is that at some point there will have to be some form of peace negotiations

If you get less value from using the money for weapons than for using it as leverage in negotiations, then it’s a bad trade-off

Make the mafia great again

The whole what? As in you think each Wikipedia article should start by describing every sound in the word?

Skeuomorph (sk like skin, eu like you, m like mat, o like orphan, ph like off)