Russia Declares Latitude on Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes

[Aemilius Paulus]

just Russia try to enforce their rule on obama, whom they perceive as weak and accommodating.

Hehe, how true. Putin is taking advantage of Obama's willingness to actually conduct something called "diplomacy" - a word unknown to President Bush, who always thought it meant "Us telling them what to do"

Appeasement never works look at ww2. You have to draw a line somewhere

Hehe, no. For the second time you sound like someone who is parroting some other source... You cannot make such a mind-boggling comparison. You can generalise characteristics of groups of people, with mixed success, but to generalise historical lessons, and apply them to other events is an abomination. Your statement inflames me with its acute absolutism and short-sightedness.

Now, I realise that you merely wrote a forum post, just as anyone else would, and all of our posts contain inaccuracies and most likely, overtly rapid jumps to conclusions - especially true of me. That is the problem with all forum posts quite a bit of times.

But seriously, what do you view as "appeasement"? You did not seem to fully grasp its meaning there. Appeasement is merely another term for "giving ground in an argument". Appeasement is meant to indicate an extreme of conceding to demands, but in practicality, no one definitely, precisely knows where the extremes lie. Diplomacy is all about giving and taking. For example, Cuban Missile Crisis: Russia gives US the assurance that the Soviet missiles will be removed from Cuba and in return takes the assurance that the American missiles will be removed from Turkey. There is diplomacy for you. I know this may be annoying, but I had the impression you missed the essence of appeasement.

"Appeasement" is the opinion that too much is given with too little return. Go figure how to apply that to the current situation... Your categorical post assertion that 'appeasement simply never works' can be incensing. The reader may perceive the post as a mark of an history-undereducated child, which is most certainly not you. in general, I try to avoid categorical statements, especially ones with such dubious parallels .