Wolfgang Ischinger, former chairman of the Munich Security Conference, had what I thought was a great idea. So I wanted to post it here and see what you all thought:
>“Russia keeps saying, if you do this, if you cross this or that red line, we might escalate,” said the 78-year-old onetime [chairman of the Munich Security Conference](https://www.politico.eu/article/diplomacy-wolfgang-ischinger-munich-security-conference/). “Why don’t we turn this thing around and say to them: ‘We have lines and if you bomb one more civilian building, then you shouldn’t be surprised if, say, we deliver Taurus cruise missiles or America allows Ukraine to strike military targets inside Russia’?”
>That way the onus will be on Moscow to decide whether to cross the red lines — or face the consequences.
I like this idea. Instead of all this hesitating about whether or not to let Ukraine strike deep inside russia, just turn the situation around and frame it as russia’s fault that this has to happen. russia attacks civilians every day. That should be enough of a reason to allow deeper strikes inside russia. Draw a red line. Say that attacks on civilians are unacceptable, **and then back up that statement with action:** the decision to allow deep strikes into russia.
I think the constant attacks on civilians are something that just doesn’t get enough media attention anymore. Yes, sometimes it does, but often there are attacks in which maybe 1-3 people are killed, and those attacks don’t get much media coverage because sadly, they happen so often. But those 1-3 people matter. This shouldn’t be acceptable. There needs to be a red line drawn here.
Now of course russia is going to complain about “escalation” anyway, but still, let’s not just let russia define the narrative. We (Ukraine’s allies) need to take control of the narrative and draw red lines and put the blame where it belongs, on russia.
scribblebear on
Hard disagree. We should both not accept Putin’s lines and leave Russia guessing what ours are.
No_Zombie2021 on
What would those red lines be? Bombing a children’s hospital? Systemically destroying schools? Torturing civilians? Kidnap Children?
heyimhereok on
Surely the red line was crossed when they invaded Ukrainian lands over 10 years ago
ICC_Is_Right on
Imho ATM: What the “west” is doing is to slowly escalating the response. Too slowly considering Ukrainian victims, but that’s what they are doing, limited by the US. The only way to see it change would be a dramatical increase of Putin’s level of agression toward them like cutting submarine cables, detonating a nuke on Ukrainian territory (even in almost empty area), bombing nuclear plant etc…
From the article: “Talk about, for example, the nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhia and making it safe” Is a very good point, but not just with talks. It’s a good, **justified**, reason to intervene.
PlutosGrasp on
Can’t. Too scared.
Virtual-Income3427 on
Only a fools set red lines
VA3DPrinter on
Sorry but the “lines” or “lines” have already been crossed loooong ago. Crimea, eastern Ukraine, the invasion, murders, on and on… were way past crossing lines.
8 Comments
Wolfgang Ischinger, former chairman of the Munich Security Conference, had what I thought was a great idea. So I wanted to post it here and see what you all thought:
>“Russia keeps saying, if you do this, if you cross this or that red line, we might escalate,” said the 78-year-old onetime [chairman of the Munich Security Conference](https://www.politico.eu/article/diplomacy-wolfgang-ischinger-munich-security-conference/). “Why don’t we turn this thing around and say to them: ‘We have lines and if you bomb one more civilian building, then you shouldn’t be surprised if, say, we deliver Taurus cruise missiles or America allows Ukraine to strike military targets inside Russia’?”
>That way the onus will be on Moscow to decide whether to cross the red lines — or face the consequences.
I like this idea. Instead of all this hesitating about whether or not to let Ukraine strike deep inside russia, just turn the situation around and frame it as russia’s fault that this has to happen. russia attacks civilians every day. That should be enough of a reason to allow deeper strikes inside russia. Draw a red line. Say that attacks on civilians are unacceptable, **and then back up that statement with action:** the decision to allow deep strikes into russia.
I think the constant attacks on civilians are something that just doesn’t get enough media attention anymore. Yes, sometimes it does, but often there are attacks in which maybe 1-3 people are killed, and those attacks don’t get much media coverage because sadly, they happen so often. But those 1-3 people matter. This shouldn’t be acceptable. There needs to be a red line drawn here.
Now of course russia is going to complain about “escalation” anyway, but still, let’s not just let russia define the narrative. We (Ukraine’s allies) need to take control of the narrative and draw red lines and put the blame where it belongs, on russia.
Hard disagree. We should both not accept Putin’s lines and leave Russia guessing what ours are.
What would those red lines be? Bombing a children’s hospital? Systemically destroying schools? Torturing civilians? Kidnap Children?
Surely the red line was crossed when they invaded Ukrainian lands over 10 years ago
Imho ATM: What the “west” is doing is to slowly escalating the response. Too slowly considering Ukrainian victims, but that’s what they are doing, limited by the US. The only way to see it change would be a dramatical increase of Putin’s level of agression toward them like cutting submarine cables, detonating a nuke on Ukrainian territory (even in almost empty area), bombing nuclear plant etc…
From the article: “Talk about, for example, the nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhia and making it safe” Is a very good point, but not just with talks. It’s a good, **justified**, reason to intervene.
Can’t. Too scared.
Only a fools set red lines
Sorry but the “lines” or “lines” have already been crossed loooong ago. Crimea, eastern Ukraine, the invasion, murders, on and on… were way past crossing lines.