No, Russia would have to appease the West to see sanctions lifted. If the sanctions were lifted first to please Russia, what motivation would Russia have to leave Ukraine?
What is your opinion on whether or not Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine?
Because nobody here is talking about lifting the sanctions to please Russia, Russia would have to stop invading Ukraine, which is explicitly not "Appeasement"[0] considering they're the aggressor and the ones creating the conflict.
The only way you could see Russia as not the aggressor here is if you think Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine...
> Because nobody here is talking about lifting the sanctions to please Russia
Right, as the ball is in Russia's court to appease the West to see them lifted, and so what political, material, or territorial concessions are being made by the West to avoid conflict? In reality, Russia is the one who must concede on Ukrainian territory for sanctions to be lifted.
> The only way you could see Russia as not the aggressor here is if you think Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine...
This is a logical fallacy. One's feelings towards the matter have absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand.
Not really my area of expertise. Any opinions I have would be pure tribalism, which is rather meaningless, and completely off-topic. I came into a discussion about the use of language, not geopolitical relations. What was wrong with the original subject that you feel the need to change it?
I think their definition of "Apeasement" they linked above can specifically only be used when talking about an "aggressive power" (cf. wikipedia)
Thus, to solve the problem of what would be "apeasement", you need to resolve the question or which of the parties involved (Russia, Ukraine, "the West", the US, etc.) should be considered "aggressive".
And that's why this question, which i think is an attempt to understand who the aggressive party/parties are in your opinion, is not a change of subject
> which i think is an attempt to understand who the aggressive party/parties are in your opinion
Appeasement is defined as policy that avoids conflict. The conflict in Ukraine hasn't been avoided and remains ongoing, so Russia does not fit no matter how you slice it. Nor does the West, to be fair. Conflict hasn't been avoided full stop.
If, for argument's sake, conflict has been avoided, it is important to understand what concessions have been made to Russia, if Russia is the aggressor. It matters not who the aggressor is if nobody is performing appeasement in the first place. I am not aware of the West providing any concessions to keep Russia happy as it pertains to this. Instead, sanctions has been imposed against their wishes.
Russia pulling out and conceding Ukrainian territory back to Ukraine to keep the West happy is how sanctions will be lifted. The West is not the aggressor in the war, but could be considered an aggressor when it comes to sanctions. They were very much intended to be putative. If appeasement is relevant (which is debatable), that is where it fits given the subject of what it will take to see sanctions lifted.
One's feelings about whether or not Russia is justified is irrelevant and a change in subject. Furthermore, use of language needs to be introspective of broad interpretation, so even if personal opinion would serve to skew in some fashion, it does not hold relevant to understanding language use in a community.
> Appeasement is defined as policy that avoids conflict.
You're simply using a different definition from them
> Furthermore, use of language needs to be introspective of broad interpretation, so even if personal opinion would serve to skew in some fashion, it does not hold relevant to understanding language use in a community.
As a matter of fact, languages I know (including English) are not built like that.
The closest "language" i know from this property is mathematics.
What is it that you thought? Your comment is unclear. That you, deep down, knew your appeal to emotion would fail? Being from the West, my uneducated, tribalist-driven opinion says that Russia is not justified. But, again, not my area of expertise and not a subject I have much interest in. I do, however, enjoy the subject of language which is why I am participating in this conversation about the use of language. Let's stick with that.
Bringing this back to the topic at hand, how do you see the West appeasing Russia leading to sanctions being lifted?
In your mind, how justified is Russia in this conflict?