“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.
Hard agree with Blinken here.
honestly, i can’t see how any reasonable person wouldn’t.
edit: russia has proven, repeatedly, that they don’t honor their agreements. the only way that they won’t invade again is if they’re kicked out and if Ukraine has a modern military fully capable of kicking russia’s ass if it tries again.
The US has proven, repeatedly, that they don’t honor their agreements. The only way they won’t invade again is if they are kicked out and if Russia has a modern military fully capable of kicking NATO’s ass if it tries again.
you have a singular talent for twisting my words into nonsense.
I could never take credit for your demonstrated mastery of bullshit
“i know you are but what am I?”
now, now, don’t be bitter…
Said the liberal screeching while their global hegemony slowly crumbles around them.
if you’re hearing screeching, look into the mirror for the source. and I’m no liberal-- but sure, just name-call anyone who disagrees with you since you have no other rational argument. like a children do.
Supporting Ukraine is the only U.S. military action since WW2 that I can truly support. Even our action in response to 9/11 was fucked up.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Then you are morally okay with Ukraine being wiped off the map and the murder of as many of its citizen as Putin’s army can manage.
Removed by mod
He made numerous overtures to try and ‘avoid’ a conflict from breaking out.
Putin: “If you allow this country to have protection from me invading it, I’m going to invade it.”
U.S.: “Yeah… we’re going to consider allowing them protection from you.”
Putin: “Oh no… somebody stop me from invading this other country…! Here I go, I’m gonna invaaaade…”
U.S.: “Okay.”
[Putin invades Ukraine, begins murdering Ukrainians]
U.S., months later: “Alright that’s enough, we’re going to help these Ukranians to keep you from murdering them.”
Putin and his sheep: “tHe U.S. iS wArMoNgErInG!!!1!!”Removed by mod
Non-binding treaties negotiated under duress that all fell apart the moment the ink was put to paper, through which Russia tried to control Ukrainian internal affairs?
Further acquiescence to a terrorist country’s demands?
Is that what we arw calling a peace treaty Ukraine violated that garanteed the righta of the Russian speaking minority of Ukrainians in donbas?
Same, its one of the only decisions the US has made that is pretty solidly good.
Removed by mod
There are US troops in Ukraine? You are privy to some information we’re not?
Amazing that you understand that your country has consistently been on the wrong side of history since WW2, but also believe this this is the first time it’s not.
What’s wrong with helping a country defend itself from invasion by imperial warmongers?
And to be clear, yes, I am calling Russia imperial warmongers. They have been actively invading neighboring countries for decades to expand themselves. And what is an empire if not a nation built on the conquest of other countries?
Removed by mod
Why does tankies support Russia they’re fascists lol
“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists!”
In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia.
Russia entered WW1 on the same spaghetti-treaty-basis as every other nation that entered the conflict of their “own” accord.
The USSR entered WW2 as a German ally and tried to once again erase Poland and the Poles as the common German/Russian imperialist ambition required. And instead of preparing for the inevitable war that literally everyone but Stalin saw coming, the Soviets collectivly spent the mid-to-late 1930s partaking in the Great Terror, nearly destroying their own nation for the sake of satiating a madman’s ego and paranoia.
If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do?
…stop promoting chauvanism? Stop trying to revive the USSR against the will of those who willingly left? Stop invading your neighbours? There’s like a million different ways to remain as a anti-democratic leech-state in this world without needing to use military force.
If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be?
It’s nice you think the US can just arbitarily expand NATO without the consent of other members, that joining NATO isn’t a choice. Likewise, it’s nice you apparently don’t get it was the same for the Warsaw Pact - Mongolia wasn’t allowed in on it as European Communists opposed having to support potential conglict between the USSR and China.
Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.
They’ve invaded two former members of the USSR, have active orders to invade a third if the oppurtunity arises, and have drawn up plans for invading a fourth-one. Sorry, but I’ll rather accept the apparent reality that Russis is a myopic yes-man state that is currently doing war and committing genocide against Ukrainians.
Removed by mod
That is absolutely not what the west is doing. Ukraine is being used as a proxy to weaken Russia using the formula that RAND outlined here. All the west is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict and it will not change the outcome. Anybody who thinks this is being done for the benefit of Ukraine is absolutely delusional.
Maybe people living in the west should focus on stopping their empire from conquering countries before getting on their high horse.
Nah, I prefer to stop countries from annexing pieces of other countries.
The US hasn’t annexed anything since 1959, and I was born too late to stop that. But Russia can’t help itself, and even gives youngsters a chance to oppose annexation.
Maybe you should figure out how to stop your own regime from invading countries before playing world police then. US is literally occupying part of Syria as we speak. Just how ignorant are you exactly?
There are far more Russian troops in Syria. I choose the lesser evil.
The legitimate government of Syria invited Russia to help it defend itself against the US regime, but do go on.
It’s really sad how duped American citizens are here. They truly believe that when changing their bio pics to a Ukraine Flag that they’re doing something. They believe their government has the best interest of Ukraine while what they’re actually supporting is their government using Ukrainian bodies to weaken an adversary under the guise of defense. No one learned anything after Iraq, it was mere MONTHS ago that liberals were giving BUSH praise! They don’t care about Abu Ghraib or what happened in Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people here are in for a rough awakening.
I’m confused. Do you think Russia taking Ukraine by force is what’s best for Ukraine? Do you think their people are volunteering to fight because they just don’t know what’s best for them? Even if Ukrainians wanted to maintain independence out of some misguided patriotism, isn’t it their right as a sovereign nation to decide that?
From the US perspective, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, aligning themselves with us. Then Russia invaded. If the US didn’t support Ukraine, the world would know they can prevent a weaker country from joining NATO by invading. After Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s no desire to send US troops but we can provide weapons and intelligence.
Weapons, intelligence and Ukrainian bodies are an extremely cheap deal to weaken an adversary, don’t you think?
When it comes to wanting oil though, US and Iraqi bodies aren’t so important. As long as you can dupe your own citizens into believing there’s WMD’s, it doesn’t matter.
And of course Ukraine knows what’s best for them. That’s why they keep asking for a roadmap to NATO but the US is like “Nah” - https://www.ft.com/content/c37ed22d-e0e4-4b03-972e-c56af8a36d2e
So of course they’re left to negotiate. Again, the US Government doesn’t care but their citizens think they do.
The US is against peace if it doesn’t get more money to the military–industrial complex or if it doesn’t weaken an adversary, like in this case.
Removed by mod
I personally don’t think it’s going to matter much for the average Ukrainian, as far as who controls their resources. I think it’s a tragedy that they’re fighting or dying over whether it’s Russian oligarchs or western oligarchs who will get to control their lives
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
By volunteered to fight you mean being abducted on the street, beaten, and sent to die?
The people of Ukraine have told the world what their best interest is: removing Russian soldiers from their land, by force if necessary.
The US is only interested in Ukraine when their goals align. Everyone knows this, including most Americans and most Ukrainians.
However, it turns out that US and Ukrainian goals do, in fact, align. The US isn’t “using” Ukraine any more than Ukraine is “using” the US. They are openly cooperating to achieve a common interest.
The Ukrainian people are being kidnapped off the street and sent to die by the regime US installed in Ukraine after overthrowing a democratically elected government. Most Ukrainians don’t want to have a war and have their lives destroyed. The only people who want this war are ghouls living in the west who aren’t personally affected by it.
Tankies can always be counted on to project the worst in themselves.
There are hundreds of thousands of Russians in Georgia and Kazakhstan who can explain which side is kidnapping young men off the street and sending them to die for a war they care nothing about. Meanwhile, opinion polls of Ukrainians consistently show that an overwhelming majority want to continue the war until Russians are defeated.
Americans are subject to the best propaganda machine that money can buy, and people running the regime are certainly getting their money’s worth.
Removed by mod
What’s wrong is your framing. The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with. Russia invaded Ukraine as part of the proxy war with the US. Claiming that the US is just helping Ukraine with its war against Russia is completely misunderstanding what’s actually happening.
The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with.
So the U.S. made Putin’s army roll its miles long line of cold-war era military equipment into Ukraine in November of '21?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
It’s hard to lie about things that the whole world was watching.
Removed by mod
There’s nothing to lie about. What we’re seeing is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The US explicitly listed conflict with Russia and China as their new strategic focus during the Obama administration. The US was making plans to include Ukraine in NATO under Clinton while Clinton was saying to Russian leaders that this would never happen.
The US has been working on Ukraine for a very long time, as part of the strategy to dominate Europe and keep Russia from competing with them.
NATO, the world’s first transnational military force, staffed and led by literal Nazi officers, built specifically to fight Russia, has been deploying nuclear capabilities all around the world to encircle China and Russia. Deploying weapons systems to the Russia/Ukraine border would be a massive strategic check on Russia by the US. The US wanted this. It worked on Ukraine for decades to bring this about.
Russia invaded Ukraine to fight the US. The US funds, arms, trains, recruits, and provides logistical support for Ukraine but the people dying are Ukrainian.
This is the literal definition of a proxy war.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I hope you get over yourself someday.
Russia was also on the wrong side of history since WW2. When two losers face off, logically one or the other must break their losing streak.
And as it turns out, the US gets the win. Congratulations.
It wasn’t, and if you think US is winning anything here then you’re completely delusional. Life is going to get really hard for you in the coming years.
Just like your leader once promised “we will bury you”. That was in 1959. He was delusional then, you are delusional today.
The coming years will be fine for the US, but not necessarily for Russia.
This has been a major reality check for me personally. For years I shook my head at the gargantuan US military budget thinking it’s ridiculous. Fast forward to February 2022 and I realize it’s the US once again cleaning up when Europe shits the bed. Ashamed, thankful and thoroughly convinced we need to spend a whole lot more in defense as well.
Idk about all that. The US has supported Ukraine and I support that. But Europe has stepped up to the plate too. While US refused to provide long range HIMARS, UK provided Storm Shadow. Poland has donated about all it has. Realistically, the US could drastically reduce it’s defense spending, provide all the support Ukraine could want, and still maintain the largest military force by a large margin.
Well that’s what I’m saying. European countries are giving all they’ve got to give while the US hardly breaks a sweat, yet the US provides a disproportionately large amount compared to the rest. Europe would be in a lot more trouble without the US, once again.
And I agree the UK deserves a lot of credit for pushing the envelope with tanks and long range and being the security provider for Sweden and Finland during the application process.
I think we mostly agree. I just disagree with your claim that the US should spend more on Defense.
I didn’t say the US should spend more, but Europe. Speaking as a European. E: trying to see if editing helps this federate.
Why does the United States get absolutely any say in a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, there meddling stopped the last peace deals, and this is really none of their buisness. Let Ukraine set there terms and negotiate for themselves.
From what I understand, that’s the idea. They are just affirming the Ukrainian position and are saying hey, we won’t withhold support and force you into a peace agreement where Ukraine would concede land to Russia despite not wanting to
Except that isnt what was said what was said is that the United States will reject any peace treaty that does not include total Russian withdrawal, they are not just giving support in general, or to a point in particular, but dictating a term. This is a conflict that offically the US is not a party to and as such the US should not be making statements like this. Agian in my opinion it should not go farther than “The United States supports Ukraine in their efforrs for peace, and for all reasonable terms they put forward” if they go farther and they wanted to show it in support it would have been “As stated before, The United States suports the Ukrainian position, including the one mentioned by [offical X] on [Day y] that any peace would include total Russian withdrawl” given nither happened, it can only be taken as the US dictating terms for a thing that they have no buisness or right setting terms for
Actually that’s basically what it says in the first paragraph
the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms
Basically saying Ukraine won’t be pressured to accept a peace deal until they’re in a stronger position
Also its important to note this isnt about accepting its about starting talks, and once agian is the US setting terms
First I dont see what there suport has to do with anything, and that is why I did not mention it, and second that is what the job of a meadeator country is for, right now the PRC has been offering but someone sugessted an African Union nation or a nation from south America, to ensure both sides get heard. That is couched language to discurage peace, Russia has indicated its willingness to talk. The longer they wait the more people die.
First of all, my suggestion was that it’d be up to them. If Ukraine and Russia are OK with PRC acting as mediator that’s really all there is to it. My point was that PRC aren’t necessarily neutral.
Secondly, a peace doesn’t necessarily mean less people dead in the long run, Russia has shown how little regard they have for civilian lives, and their imperialistic posturing begs the question as to who would be next? Moldova perhaps?
As an allegory, consider that you have a neighbour who believes he should be entitled to taking the eldest of your three children and half of your house. Would a good mediator then suggest that your neighbour should only get 25% of your house and perhaps your youngest child? I think not, and I think that’s more or less the position Ukraine has when it comes to their territorial integrity. I’m sure they’re open to debate NATO membership as well as keeping Sevastopol open, but they have been rather firm that they will not discuss any option involving concession of land to Russia, and I don’t think you, the PRC or anyone else are in a position to judge them for that.
First things first its Ukraine that violated the Minsk Accords, and bombed the citizens in donbass, who at the time where theirs, leading to this whole conflict when due to the violation of the accords Russias hand was for lack of a better term forced. If you will remember back it was not untill the DPR and LPR overwhelmingly voted for unification with Russia did they.
Second, you seem to be prejudging the medation China has made no statement beyond their want for peace, I am only stating that it is not the United Stateses place to be demanding any terms to a treaty let alone a mere cese fire.
deleted by creator
While I am at it, The PRC has been trying for months to broker peace and has Russia at the table, why doesn’t the US let Ukraine go to the table and negotiate, The United States has no right to be king of the world and has no right to be setting any terms for these talks.
Removed by mod
It’s very ironic how you are fine with china’s involvement but not the US’
The difference is china is merely acting as a medator, a nutural 3rd party whos job is to 1) host the negotiations 2) help the 2 sides truly hear each other and come to a compromise. If you listen to what China says about this and how they interact with Russia its in keeping with this role, that all they want is to see the fighting end. The United States by dictating terms has forfitted there ability to fufill this role, China however has sugested nor offered any terms, only a table to talk at. If you really don’t want China it doesn’t have to be China, but they already have one side seated, and I would like to hear who else you would propose?
Is this really true though? A neutral third party would not supply weapons or have any economic incentive to the outcome of the conflict, which China plainly does have. I’m not saying the US or really any NATO country is in a better position, however saying China is only interested in peace and are a neutral third party is disingenuous.
And as to what Blinken is saying, that’s something Ukraine has been saying since the invasion began. Sure it’s not his place, however if you interpret it charitably, it could also be construed as supporting the stance of your ally in the face of pressure towards an agreement they don’t really want.
Please enlighten me both on what the PRCs economic and Weapon selling intrests lie, because as far as I can tell they have not supplied any weapons, and the only economic action if you can even call it that, that the PRC has taken was not play along with US Sanctions. I would also like to hear who you think would be a better medator, because contrary to popular belief I too would like this conflict to come to a quick and diplomatic solution, the less deaths, the less destroyed homes the better.
Second I don’t see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more, it has lost that ability quite a while ago by virtue of its actions on the geopolitical stage, This whole thing would read different if it was a genaric “The United States backes Ukrainians position in this negotiation” but that would ofcorse require negotiations to be happening, negotiations that are not at present happening. This is a very clear, position the US is taking and “Strongly Sugesting” Ukraine adopt aswell.
Please enlighten me
China has supplied drones and more than likely advanced technology like semi-conductors and equipment meant for operating radar systems/weapons guidance and similar. Some of this is not “official” support, in the sense that civilian Chinese companies are supplying drones, however this is certainly being used for military purposes within Ukraine. Whether or not this can be proven 100% is less important, since the appearance of bias is as detrimental to neutrality as actual bias.
With regards to the economic incentive, Chinese trade has increased by 30% since the invasion began, making China by far the most important trading partner for Russia.
Now, I am making no judgement as to the morality of this and I am certainly not making any pro US arguments, I am just pointing out that painting China as a neutral part here is disingenuous, they absolutely have interests that align more closely with their good friend and trading partner Russia vs. helping Ukraine and the rest of Europe reach any goals they might have.
Second I don’t see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more
That’s fine and I understand the sentiment (although as a rhetorical device, I find the “principle of charity” to be worthwhile and helpful towards mutual understanding), however I don’t think this makes either Russia or China any better - they just might all be a bunch of evil bastards :)
Then I agian ask you, who would you put as a better option for the host and medator of these talks?
So if the war end right now would that mean Russia would withdraw it’s troops from Ukraine? No it wouldn’t, so implicitly engaging in peace talks while Russia holds territory in Ukraine would mean conceding territory. Why would china want that? Isn’t that meddling in the war?
They say they want peace and are willing to hold talks, I am mot sure what your getting at, in no war ever has the beginning of peace talks been the cesation of the war, and how the war ends is determined by said peace talks, talks that of right bow are not happening.
Now if you are trying to argue that the mere act of trying to hold peace talks or offering to hold peace talks, or holding peace talks is taking a position in the war? I dont think we need to inform Switzerland that they have infact never been nutral in any conflict they mediated.
As for what China wants, they have stated all they want is peace many times, they do not have a horse in the race on who gets what, that makes them the ideal mediators.
So what is the point of having peace talks if not the cessation of war?
The end goal is the cessation of the war, but the fighting contenues untill a cesefire or peace treaty is negotiated and signed, and the war contenues untill said treaty is signed. A sad truth of war is while diplomats are haggling over words on a page the fighting still contues, the war ends when the negotiations end.
I expect that Ukraine is also saying “no” to any peace deal that doesn’t include total Russian withdrawal.
I would interpret a statement like this from the US as meaning “we’re not going to lean on the Ukrainians to accept any sort of compromise that they’re not already interested in accepting,” which is perfectly fine IMO.
How the Ukrainians act at the negotiating table and how they negotiate ought to be left up to them. However it is out of line for the United States to say this, first as a nation who isn’t officially party to the conflict setting any terms or tones to the negotiation is out of line we should be hearing this from Ukrainian Officials instead. This is ment from Washington to be a very clear signal to Ukraine on what to do.
Removed by mod
It’s actually upsetting to read some people defend an illegal war of aggression in this thread. Just practice the golden rule for a change and imagine yourself being in the same situation. What if it was your country being invaded? Would you take up arms to defend your family, your friends, your neighbors? The bombs are dropping everywhere, and you have to hide in basements to prevent their terror attacks from taking away all that you hold dear.
Of course a country being invaded has the right to defend themselves and the right to fight back. The aggressors could end this war immediately but they wont because their leader is an insular autocrat. Isolating himself and giving orders without considering the best for the rest of the world. Devaluing human life from on top of a pedestal. This is the danger what happens when one single individual gains too much power and the rest of the world needs to be unanimously against it regardless of blind idealism.
illegal war
How would you define a “legal war”?
A war can be considered legal if it meets the criteria and conditions set forth by international law. On the other hand, an “illegal war” typically refers to armed conflicts that do not meet the requirements outlined in international law.
Removed by mod
Straight up. Israel and Ukraine are under constant attack these days and absolutely not be criticized for defending themselves even if they don’t always go about it exactly the right way.
Are you seriously comparing an apartheid state to a country that’s a victim of an invasion? Is Israel “defending itself” when it slaughters Palestinian children?
Have you ever been there? Do you know what apartheid actually means? Every single Palestinian without citizenship doesn’t have it only because they refused. And furthermore, in 2005 Israel actually forced its own citizens out of the Gaza strip, whole family’s dislocated at gunpoint by their own government. And when the Palestinians moved in, the terrorists among them tore down the infrastructure and somehow convinced their brethren that the Israelis were to blame. Israel is not the one who’s indiscriminately shooting rockets from hospitals and schoolyards. Israel is not the one encouraging citizens to enter houses of worship and go on killing sprees. Israel is not the one who is encouraging and applauding suicide bombers attacking bus stops and pizza shops. Israel is the one who is sending out texts and dropping leaflets warning people to get out of buildings that they suspect are housing military equipment used to attack them before bombing said buildings. It is easily within Israel’s capability set to kill every last Palestinian and I imagine just about any other country put through what Israel’s been put through would be a lot more aggressive. They aren’t always in the right. There are things they have done wrong. But an apartheid state they are not.
Forgot to mention, the terrorists in charge of the Gaza strip also diverted equipment meant to be used for construction and instead chose to use it to dig tunnels to get through to Israel to carry out attacks and kidnappings.
I’m sorry, how do you think YOU would behave if your homeland were colonized? You’d just politely ask the colonizers to leave until they felt bad enough for you to listen? Not everything Palestinians do to fight back is good or justified, but they’re clearly the victims in this scenario.
Half of children in Gaza are suicidal. HALF. 60% self-harm, and 80% are depressed. Are you cool with that? Because that is directly Israel’s doing.
To be clear, Israel is not a unique evil. The US and China are at least as bad. But Israel is not magically exempt from criticism, nor is it remotely comparable to Ukraine.
Israel are not colonizers though. Israel is one of the indigenous people finally returning to their homeland. You can say they should share and I agree but the immediate attempt at their annihilation right when they were established definitely indicated that many of their neighbors were not keen on sharing nicely. It’s awful that the children in Gaza are suffering but the blame for that lies with the terrorists who use those children as human shields, tore down the infrastructure, and diverted construction materials meant for humanitarian aid to be used to enable further terrorist attacks, not the country that forced it’s own citizens out and left a fully functioning set of infrastructure for the new inhabitants.
Edit- I was hoping to get away from Reddit culture of disagree=downvote and was looking forward to productive respectful discussions here. So far it seems not to be working out but maybe we can still turn it around
If white Americans today went back to Europe and forcibly displaced the people living there, they would be colonizers. It doesn’t matter that they can trace their lineage back to that location. The idea that blood links you to land is nonsense.
Jesus Christ, how much Israeli propaganda have you been drinking? I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, but even assuming that’s all true, whose fault is it that people there needed humanitarian aid in the first place? Try reading sources on Palestinians that don’t have a pro-Israel agenda sometime.
My instance disables downvotes, so I can neither downvote you nor see your negative score, but good. I’m glad you’re getting downvoted. That’s exactly what uncritically regurgitated propaganda deserves.
How much Palestinian propaganda have you been reading? Americans weren’t forcibly expelled to begin with and even if they were they haven’t been actively demonstrably yearning and attempting to return ever since so the analogy fails on two counts. A third count as well actually because Americans haven’t had bigotry, prosecution, and murder sprees and mobs and pogroms constantly plaguing them everywhere they’ve been since they left europe.
Regarding the downvotes- good to know although ironically you are the person who would uld be least wrong to downvote me. You’re at least articulating what you disagree with than giving a cowardly anonymous thumbs down like those who have been downvoting.
Downvoted for being off topic and thread derailing.
Fair enough. I appreciate the critique.
I would flee from the front line and I recommend everybody else do the same. Why get involved when states fight over their sphere of influence? Ukraine isn’t a state worth giving your life for. US imperial hegemony (a major reason for this conflict) should not be supported. They will abuse any support given to further their own goals and throw you (or anyone) under the bus when convenient.
Removed by mod
You bring up a lot of things I never typed that aren’t relevant to what I actually typed. It shows how deluded you are. For all the “western propaganda” where is all the evidence you speak of that that Russia invading Ukraine is somehow justified? Truth is not propaganda. Instead of attacking your imaginary fairy-tale “western” beast, try facing the reality that you are actually wrong. Take a mental journey and imagine yourself in the same position of the victims of war, then how wrong it is to somehow try to justify any of it.
Removed by mod
Ha, the local tankies are starting to find out that they’re outnumbered by reddit-fuges. Still, I believe that barring a negotiated peace, the war will continue for many, many years. The alternatives are either Russian withdraw and/or regime change or Ukrainian collapse, and neither seem likely in the near future. Even Kissinger, which is as blood-thirsty as they come, has suggested a negotiated peace, and it’s hard to imagine a negotiation that doesn’t concede something to Russia. The question isn’t a moral one. The deaths will continue to pile up until negotiation begins.
look, no reasonable person wants war-- but that’s the problem: those who started the war and are continuing it aren’t being reasonable. And they’re not going to negotiate any sort of peace if they don’t get what they wanted by stating the war in the first place: a slice of Ukraine. so, also believe there won’t be any peace until Russia leaves Ukraine, and that may take years to convince them to do-- at the barrel of a gun, sadly. Possibly a Russian regime change.
as for the local tankies… i don’t know how much of that you read, but when attempts at rational arguments failed, they just resorted to personal attacks and bullying, which is nothing foreign to me. battle-hardened with the most toxic of reddit trolls, it just rolls of my back. :P
I initially joined lemmy about 2 years ago, and the place was swamped with them. They have their own instance they hide out on, which lemmy.ml federates with but beehaw.org and sopuli.xyz do not. It will be interesting to see how the lemmy landscape evolves as time passes on.
Is there a way to block an entire instance in Lemmy like you can with mastodon? Or to just hide all the posts from them?
This thread has made me realize how insufferable they are
I don’t think so, at least not yet. I think the alternative is to sign up for an instance that doesn’t federate with them.
Yup, I also have an account on Beehaw but I’ve been switching back and forth since the local feed on this instance hasore traffic. I’ve found the community to be a lot more pleasant over there though
yeah… i have an account on both lemmy.ml, and on beehaw.org. currently, I’m sticking with lemmy.ml just because I want to see more content, and I think I an handle the shitty people due to having a think skin, but it’s nice to know that there are nicer instanes, should i need to deal with it on those terms.
Ukraine will at least need to make some sort of compromise over the port at Sevastopol. From what I understand, that’s the only port available for Russia’s Black Sea fleet. Russia has historically held a naval base there and would likely be unyielding on that point. Forcing Russia to butt out is one thing, but them losing significant amounts of their defense capability is another.
heh, I’m sure Russia very much feels this way, but I don’t see how Ukraine needs to make any compromises at all, nor why Russia should be given the opportunity to save any face. They got themselves into this mess and have done some terrible things. They deserve to crawl away with their tails between their legs with nothing to show for it. Why should they get anything after what they’ve done?
I fully agree that Russia crawling away with their tail between their legs would be the ideal solution. But at what price? Russia would be willing to spill a lot of blood over that base, even compared to an already bloody war. The reality is that starting negotiations with the assumption that the end agreement will include guarantees around Sevastopol will save a lot of lives without making a huge change from the 2014 status quo.
the price is Ukranian freedom, and it’s worth fighting for until Russia backs down. There is no rational argument to be made for Ukraine sacrificing the freedom of its citizens, for if they do - if Russia learns it can bully Ukraine into sacrificing its citizens and land - it will just come back for more.
russia has proven it will not honor its agreements, or this war would not be happening now. they need to learn their lesson and be beaten.
It was Ukraine not Russia who violated the Minsk Accords
Removed by mod
But is it so important to have that patch of ground in Crimea? It would also give Ukraine a snap back mechanism if Russia ever reneges on a deal. Fund separatists or start a Russia-backed coup and bombs could be raining down on Russia’s precious warships within minutes. Stick to the deal and everything stays nice and peaceful indefinitely. The price is minor, since Russia already had the base in 2014. The change is that there would need to be a formal treaty that obliges Russia to non-interference in Ukrainian affairs and obliges Ukraine to allow supplies through to the Black Sea fleet. This was previously maintained by having a friendly/neutral Ukrainian government, but now terms must be in writing.
I’d love to see it, but that’s just petty vengeance on my part, wanting to see a bully punished.
I don’t know if a humiliated Russia is an ideal solution. The humiliation of Germany after WW I greatly contributed to the rise of Hitler, and we don’t want to see a repeat of that.
An ideal solution IMHO would be regime change, a complete withdrawl to pre-2014 borders, and full blame placed on Putin and his staunchest cronies, allowing the general public and even his supporting public to save face. The story that he lied to and misled the public might alleviate some humiliation at the withdrawal. Something like how WW II was handled should be the model: defeat of the previous regime, strict laws banning the worst behaviors leading to Putin’s dictatorship, curtailing corruption, and strong investment and rebuilding of Russian society by the victors. People tend to forget hurt egos more easily when they’re prosperous.
Whipping the dog that bit you doesn’t make a safer dog.
Edit: PS, it’s easy for me to say this. I have no friends or family raped, tortured or murdered by Russians. I have had no children abducted into re-education camps. If it happened yo me, I’d want a blood bath, a murderous swath cut through Russia to the Kremlin. I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want this. I’m just saying that, unless you’re commited to genocide, it’s more likely to come back around in an endless cycle of vengeance.
Speaking of the Marshall Plan, it had considerable push back at the time. It took a Soviet backed coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 for Americans to realize that leaving Europe starved and in tatters would push Europe into the arms of the Soviets. The Marshall Plan was a relatively cheap way to win battles before they ever occurred.
Russia will not, of course, be the same as post-WW2 Nazi Germany. The victors must be Russians, not outsiders. But Westerners should be willing to give freely, maybe with some basic stipulations around rule of law so Russia doesn’t fall back into being a dictatorial kleptocracy that threatens its neighbors.
Russians being victors meaning Russians overthrowing their oppressor? Because a Russian victory in Ukraine, as unlikely as it would be, would lead only to more aggression and certainly no outside investment (except perhaps from China, which is facing its own problems).
@pingveno Russia does have another port in the mainland, at Novorossiysk. Why did it not decide to use it instead? That is out of my understanding. Perhaps Putin just wanted to make Ukraine vulnerable in the south, or gain a longer shore on the Black Sea. Otherwise, I don’t know.
You’re right, I was wrong. However, Novorossiysk is 200 miles to the east, the equivalent of New York to Washington, DC traveled via water. Sevastopol gives the Black Sea fleet a much stronger presence. Russia would be highly resistant to weakening the Black Sea fleet, to the point of that being a deal breaker for any peace treaty.
Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there’s some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.
Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.
Yeah, that’s basically what I’m suggesting, plus security guarantees to avoid a repeat conflict. Before 2014, Russia was renting out the base.
Interesting, I didn’t realize that Russia was already renting out the base pre-2014. Thank you for that context.
It’s probably why Russia invaded Crimea in the first place. Otherwise it’s not all that useful.
Or you know it could be that Crimea is primarily populated by Russians and the regime the west installed after the coup was actively doing pogroms against Russian speaking people in Ukraine.
Sorry for being offtopic: Is there a section for Ukraine related news? (The Ukraine subreddit is the only thing I truly miss from Reddit.)
There is !ukraine@sopuli.xyz for example.
Imperialism is bad even when it’s not the USA doing it.
Ukraine absolutely deserves our support in this war.
Bunch of people keep talking about how the US shouldn’t broker peace deals and China should. Hypocrisy at its finest.
The fact is, having a third party nation recommendation for peace or no peace is a standard for centuries, and if that nation is a global hegemony with nuclear weapons, then it makes sense.
Removed by mod
If they actually had any influence instead of being a laughing stock, then it would be the norm, yes. They don’t though, but China could and would be the better example instead of a Red herring. Or Australia (they don’t have nukes, but similar influence and such).
People want the war could end, but US won’t let it. What hypocrisy?
Removed by mod
people want the war to end
Russia clearly doesn’t. In fact they were the ones who started it
It was Ukraine that violated the Minsk Accords not Russia
Removed by mod
Ukraine started the war in 2014 by shelling civilians in the donnbass
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
The US is one of the least peaceful states in the world, and that’s no easy feat. Plus, they are openly involved in the proxy war, as opposed to China.
I’m not seeing the hypocrisy here.
Removed by mod
Do I understand it correctly, that “total withdrawal” is giving back the regions that agreed to be with Russia, alongside getting the troops back?
You mean that separatist regions that got installed by Russia and would already have lost without the Russian troops intervention in 2014 - 2015? That regions that have a government of brutal former criminals (that brutally oppressed every opposition)? Yes those too. If the people really want to be part of Russia, they can ask for a fair referendum with international observers after Russia fucked off.
They can also just move to Russia if they don’t like living in Ukraine
Let’s take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here’s how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
And we can see a few interesting facts about Crimea in a US government study. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
And finally, here are some facts, as documented by western media, about the regime in Ukraine that you’re evidently supporting
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHhGEiwCHZE
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329
- https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2021-05-04/ty-article/.premium/ukrainian-official-changes-tune-on-unacceptable-march-honoring-ss-unit/0000017f-e0e2-d7b2-a77f-e3e7ee990000
- https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
- https://consortiumnews.com/2022/12/29/on-the-influence-of-neo-nazism-in-ukraine/
- https://consortiumnews.com/2022/12/29/evidence-of-us-backed-coup-in-kiev/
- https://gordonhahn.com/2015/05/02/ukraines-neo-fascist-right-sector-claims-responsibility-again-for-2-may-2014-terrorist-pogrom/
- http://www.errc.org/news/anti-roma-pogroms-in-ukraine-on-c14-and-tolerating-terror
that’s some impressive mental gymnastics for supporting an illegal invasion and nothing you said changes that. if these people don’t like living in Ukraine, they can leave. That doesn’t excuse Russia for invading another sovereign nation, and Ukraine has every right to defend itself.
it reminds me of this:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
Removed by mod
The only people doing mental gymnastics here are the ones who genuinely believe that the west is helping Ukraine defend itself as opposed to destroying Ukraine in a proxy war with Russia. You are all going to have a lot of soul searching to do at the end of all this.
“i know you are but what am I?” is the argument of a child, and pretending that the west helping Ukraine is the same as Russia bombing it to bits is treating your audience like children.
believe it or not, not everyone is as foolish as you.
The west is not helping Ukraine, and the fact that people in the west continue to pretend that’s the case if absolutely sickening. And you’ve demonstrated beyond all doubt that you are far more foolish than me.
The west is not helping Ukraine
so you say, but in every demonstrable way, we are, including by every claim made by their government and the plurality of their people. and it’s pretty hilarious that you claim to be some authority to make claims to the contrary. The only ones who would claim otherwise are Russia and their supporters, of which you are clearly one.
so, why should anyone take your positions seriously?
Wow, your maps are so persuasive!
I’m excited to report that I just looked at map of Kosovo, it shows almost the same thing! That region is full of people who consider themselves ethnic Albanians who don’t support Serbia in the slightest.
I guess that means that you must support the annexation of Kosovo to Albania, by force if necessary, right? I mean, because otherwise that would mean that you are nothing more than a reflexive, anti-West stooge and there’s no way that could be possible.
If people in Kosovo actually want to join Albania then they should be able to. Last I checked though, there are plenty of Serbs living there who recently clashed with NATO troops. You want to remind me why that happened?
Because the PM of Kosovo was an idiot. Fortunately he now seems to be willing to change his plans.
Wait, I thought Ukraine was a sovereign, independent state. That’s what the media been screeching about for over a year. Now it is saying USA is deciding their foreign policy?
Funny that
how is expressing an opinion equate to “deciding their foreign policy”?
edit: other than speaking the obvious, of course
The US has no buisness in expressing a term of peace to a conflict they are not a party too, the only explination for this, and its supported by the past actions of The United States, is that it is dictating forign policy to Ukraine
Here are some gentlemen “expressing an opinion”.
It’s Schrödinger’s regime in Ukraine that’s both completely independent and does exactly what its western masters tell it to do.
Warmonger. Don’t the Ukrainians get a say in whether the US can sacrifice so many people for US goals?
It’s funny how you blame the US for Russia’s invasion and pretend like Ukraine didn’t ask for our help.
The US has been encircling Russia and China for decades with nuclear weapons and nuclear first strike capabilities. The idea that Russia just up and invaded Ukraine for no reason is a Western liberal construction that requires memoryholing the last 25 years of US/NATO aggression, expansion, and nuclear development.
That’s not what I said.
yet it’s very obviously what you meant
It’s irrelevant who I blame for the war.
I’ll explain.
The are several interpretations of what I said. Yours among them. But I am now confirming, for the second time, that I did not mean what you think I meant.
Two other valid interpretations, which I did intend, include: (1) that the US and it’s executives and diplomats are warmongers; and (2) that Ukrainian demands are for the Ukrainians alone to determine.
The war is now an historical fact. Who started it is a significant issue but is neither here nor there for the point that I’m making. I’ll elaborate on that point so as to put a stop to the evident confusion.
Peace will not be reached for so long as the US seeks profits in (a) selling weapons and (b) the reconstruction of Ukraine. The longer the war and the more destruction it causes, the more profit in it for the US.
The US is interested in Ukraine only insofar as it reaps these profits. I say nothing of ordinary Americans, who are likely genuinely and rightly appalled at the war and hope for the US to end it. Unfortunately, if they hope for this, they do not know their government nor it’s financial interests. That is tragic, because if they did know, they might better help to end this war and many others.
The true ends of those decision makers (in the US and in Europe, too) are clear in statements like those in the linked article. If peace was the aim, the US would not be making demands that it knows Russia will never agree to. Are Russia’s demands acceptable? It’s again beside the point.
The question is, what is the quickest way to end the war? The answer to that question will reveal the steps that must be taken. I struggle to see how inflammatory warmongering statements from a known warmonger state could ever be part of that answer or those steps.
it’s irrelevant who you blame because your argument is a strawman and tu quoque logical fallacy.
Russia, and Russia alone is to blame for the war in Ukraine, as they are the ones who invaded and refuse to leave. The war will end only when they leave, regardless of how much you try to deflect blame onto anyone else.
edit: and the fact that you call the US a “warmonger” simply for helping Ukraine defend itself reminds me of this:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
have a nice day.
At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.
I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history. Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
No amount of ‘just war’ will cancel out what the US did to Iraq or Libya or Vietnam or Laos or any number of other military atrocities.
At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.
i never agreed to that
I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history
now you’re just changing your argument again by moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.
Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren’t necessarily factual, you’re just arguing in bad faith because you have a grudge about what the US did in the past, which has no bearing here– and is therefore irrelevant. like I said: a straw man and a tu quoque logical fallacy. in other words: bullshit. You just don’t like the US, and you’ll malign them for helping Ukraine defend itself, regardless of the merits, which you, yourself admit.
Your argument is no based in facts, it’s based in your agenda of anger and bitterness.
Accusing everyone you disagree with of having darvo? Projection?
DOWN TO THE LAST UKRAINIAN!!!
Translation: Blinken says that US wants to drag the war out as long as possible.
*as long as is necessary. russia can withdraw whenever it likes.
Just like Afghanistan.
not in any way like afghanistan
You’re right, US is going to pull out after only two years instead of 20.
pull out of what? we’re not in. we have no troops over there like we did in afganistan.
Pull out of the proxy war that US engineered and is currently fuelling. This war will be over as soon as US stops pouring billions into it.
“Over” with Putin having gotten what he wants after killing millions of Ukrainians and still occupying their land. So no, fuck Putin and fuck anyone who supports his insane bloody quest for glory.
buddy, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
