The Armed Forces of Ukraine were able to advance up to 1,400 metres on different parts of the Bakhmut front during the day, Serhii Cherevatyi, the spokesman for the eastern group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said.
This seems like a false dichotomy, Ukraine can surrender as well, as unpopular as it would be. Ukraine has been following the lead of the US, even before the invasion. This has lead them away from any negotiations, right to where they are today.
Unpopular? That’s the word you’d use to describe Ukraine surrendering? Just “unpopular”? Putin rejected the (ostensibly) real goal of Ukraine being barred from NATO before the war even started in order to seek out deeper goals and political control. Then he ran the independence referenda in the Russian-army-occupied settlements, that claimed “independence” over the entire regions (a large chunk of which Russia didn’t even control).
Those referenda are currently a part of Putin’s non-negotiables for a peace deal. So then why would you ever characterise it as Ukraine bringing it on themselves? That they’re the ones who aren’t being serious about negotiations? Are they “prolonging” the war for fun? I hope you don’t actually buy this and it’s just a contrarian bit.
You need to realize that I don’t have a side in this fight, neither one is fighting for “the right thing” here. I exclusively stand with the Ukrainians who are caught between geopolitical forces far outside of their control, and now will be suffering for decades to come (if they aren’t dead already being caught in a warzone at all). I’m not some “pro-Russia” dork.
Then he ran the independence referenda in the Russian-army-occupied settlements, that claimed “independence” over the entire regions (a large chunk of which Russia didn’t even control).
It’s interesting the way you phrase your summary in the language offered by Ukraininan/US/Western propaganda, of course Russian propaganda will have their own way of describing the state of the Donbass territories, and it’s important to carefully analyze both sources in order to have a basic idea of what’s going on. I acknowledge that the language/culture barrier is going to prevent me from having any sort of advanced understanding of the political situation there, but maybe if you have close ties to Eastern Ukraine, you could fill me in?
So then why would you ever characterise it as Ukraine bringing it on themselves? That they’re the ones who aren’t being serious about negotiations?
It’s not strictly Ukraine, as they were victims of a United States-backed coup in 2014, but from my point of view, it’s been a bit of a clown show of leadership from them leading up to the conflict. The United States has repeatedly been shown to be an unreliable ally, and for some reason (well, we know the reason) Ukrainian leadership kept deciding to align with them and talk about their aspirations for NATO membership, even though that would be an obvious threat to Russia.
I can understand why many Ukrainians would prefer to have closer ties to the EU and “the west”, however doing that comes with a gigantic risk of pissing off their larger, more powerful neighbor. None of this is “just”, it’s just reality.
Are they “prolonging” the war for fun? I hope you don’t actually buy this and it’s just a contrarian bit.
With the mimimal amount of information I have available to me, I don’t “agree” with Putin’s decision to invade (but, who gives a fuck what some guy on the internet thinks anyway?), at the same time, it was an inevitable result of the ongoing development of history. The real tragedy is the dissolution of the USSR, which was certainly flawed, but has left every member state and many others around the world worse off. Thank you, USA.
NATO support has thrown fuel onto this brutal conflict and is absolutely heinous, in my opinion. A swift end is what I have been hoping for from the beginning, but it only prolongs it further.
They tried surrendering to Russia in 2014 and it only got them 8 years of peace before Russia invaded again. How long do you think it’d take next time, 6 years? 4 years?
You are correct that it’s a false dichotomy. Because what I said wasn’t a dichotomy at all, but your statement that surrendering to a foreign country and ceasing to be a nation, stopping teaching your language, culture and history and instead becoming willing servants to the master Rus race is an equivalent option to Russia leaving an internationally recognized nation alone, no longer killing their citizens and destroying their infrastructure… well that’s a false dichotomy.
It’s an option, yes, but there’s no equivalence. And I expected someone to respond to this effect, and so picked my original words carefully.
Because, you see, while current citizens of Ukraine may still exist as Russians if they accept Russia’s demands, Ukraine itself won’t. That’s the end goal here, and Ukraine realizes that now. Originally they thought Russia just wanted a port, and grudgingly gave them Crimea with the understanding that hostilities would cease. But that wasn’t enough. Russia wanted to run Ukraine as a satellite country just like Belarus. At that point, Ukraine is no longer a sovereign nation.
So no, they can’t just give in to Russia. The options are to fight until Russia leaves, or become Russian. No option exists to be Ukraine and not have Russia leave.
This was tried in North America by the way… Europeans came in and destroyed the language, culture and history of the people living there and took their land as their own. It wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now. And Ukranians don’t want to have to live through the horrors of residential schools, changing treaties and biological warfare. They’d rather learn from history than repeat it.
It sounds like you have some severe misconceptions about the geopolitical factors sparked the conflict, and Russia’s reasoning for the invasion (reasoning that I don’t agree with, for the record).
This seems like a false dichotomy, Ukraine can surrender as well, as unpopular as it would be. Ukraine has been following the lead of the US, even before the invasion. This has lead them away from any negotiations, right to where they are today.
Unpopular? That’s the word you’d use to describe Ukraine surrendering? Just “unpopular”? Putin rejected the (ostensibly) real goal of Ukraine being barred from NATO before the war even started in order to seek out deeper goals and political control. Then he ran the independence referenda in the Russian-army-occupied settlements, that claimed “independence” over the entire regions (a large chunk of which Russia didn’t even control).
Those referenda are currently a part of Putin’s non-negotiables for a peace deal. So then why would you ever characterise it as Ukraine bringing it on themselves? That they’re the ones who aren’t being serious about negotiations? Are they “prolonging” the war for fun? I hope you don’t actually buy this and it’s just a contrarian bit.
You need to realize that I don’t have a side in this fight, neither one is fighting for “the right thing” here. I exclusively stand with the Ukrainians who are caught between geopolitical forces far outside of their control, and now will be suffering for decades to come (if they aren’t dead already being caught in a warzone at all). I’m not some “pro-Russia” dork.
It’s interesting the way you phrase your summary in the language offered by Ukraininan/US/Western propaganda, of course Russian propaganda will have their own way of describing the state of the Donbass territories, and it’s important to carefully analyze both sources in order to have a basic idea of what’s going on. I acknowledge that the language/culture barrier is going to prevent me from having any sort of advanced understanding of the political situation there, but maybe if you have close ties to Eastern Ukraine, you could fill me in?
It’s not strictly Ukraine, as they were victims of a United States-backed coup in 2014, but from my point of view, it’s been a bit of a clown show of leadership from them leading up to the conflict. The United States has repeatedly been shown to be an unreliable ally, and for some reason (well, we know the reason) Ukrainian leadership kept deciding to align with them and talk about their aspirations for NATO membership, even though that would be an obvious threat to Russia.
I can understand why many Ukrainians would prefer to have closer ties to the EU and “the west”, however doing that comes with a gigantic risk of pissing off their larger, more powerful neighbor. None of this is “just”, it’s just reality.
With the mimimal amount of information I have available to me, I don’t “agree” with Putin’s decision to invade (but, who gives a fuck what some guy on the internet thinks anyway?), at the same time, it was an inevitable result of the ongoing development of history. The real tragedy is the dissolution of the USSR, which was certainly flawed, but has left every member state and many others around the world worse off. Thank you, USA.
NATO support has thrown fuel onto this brutal conflict and is absolutely heinous, in my opinion. A swift end is what I have been hoping for from the beginning, but it only prolongs it further.
Anyway, not every person you disagree with is “doing a contrarian bit”. My positions aren’t even that far outside of the mainstream.
I am sad to see Reddit like/dislike downvoting behavior propagated to lemmy.
Did @14specks@lemmy.ml not contribute to the discussion?
They tried surrendering to Russia in 2014 and it only got them 8 years of peace before Russia invaded again. How long do you think it’d take next time, 6 years? 4 years?
You are correct that it’s a false dichotomy. Because what I said wasn’t a dichotomy at all, but your statement that surrendering to a foreign country and ceasing to be a nation, stopping teaching your language, culture and history and instead becoming willing servants to the master Rus race is an equivalent option to Russia leaving an internationally recognized nation alone, no longer killing their citizens and destroying their infrastructure… well that’s a false dichotomy.
It’s an option, yes, but there’s no equivalence. And I expected someone to respond to this effect, and so picked my original words carefully.
Because, you see, while current citizens of Ukraine may still exist as Russians if they accept Russia’s demands, Ukraine itself won’t. That’s the end goal here, and Ukraine realizes that now. Originally they thought Russia just wanted a port, and grudgingly gave them Crimea with the understanding that hostilities would cease. But that wasn’t enough. Russia wanted to run Ukraine as a satellite country just like Belarus. At that point, Ukraine is no longer a sovereign nation.
So no, they can’t just give in to Russia. The options are to fight until Russia leaves, or become Russian. No option exists to be Ukraine and not have Russia leave.
This was tried in North America by the way… Europeans came in and destroyed the language, culture and history of the people living there and took their land as their own. It wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now. And Ukranians don’t want to have to live through the horrors of residential schools, changing treaties and biological warfare. They’d rather learn from history than repeat it.
It sounds like you have some severe misconceptions about the geopolitical factors sparked the conflict, and Russia’s reasoning for the invasion (reasoning that I don’t agree with, for the record).