• knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Who gave the US the power to reject negotiation proposals between Ukraine and Russia? I thought Ukraine is an independent and sovereign country defending itself from an invading force. Who’s the US to say what Ukraine can and can’t meet to discuss?

    • ☭ Blursty ☭@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Who gave the US the power to reject negotiation proposals between Ukraine and Russia?

      The CIA, when they couped Ukraine’s leadership. It’s just a puppet state acting in America’s interests now.

      • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Indeed they did, as they always do. I just can’t stand burger crackers insisting that Ukraine is a sovereign nation, while at the same time their trusted media and government openly admit that the shots are being called from Washington and not Kiev.

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Who gave the US the power to reject negotiation proposals between Ukraine and Russia?

      No one, that’s what Washington is saying on the article, responding to a plea from Putin for the US to come to the negotiations table.

      The “proposal” made by Putin was addressed to the US. The US said it’s not on us, you should talk to Ukraine.

      So I believe right now you are agreeing with Washington and disagreeing with Putin, correct?

  • Jack@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    My question is why is the US rejecting anything, isn’t that a war between Russia and Ukraine?

      • groupofcrows@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        11 months ago

        It is a great investment for NATO. At the cost of spare inventory of 2nd tier weapons (which need to be replaced soon), they can broom fuck Russia from a safe distance… And Ukraine is begging for this it’s only polite to help out.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Except that’s not what’s actually happening given that it’s Europe and Ukraine being broom fucked, as you put it. Russian economy is growing, as is its industrial output. Russia has successfully diverted trade away from the west and had no problems finding new trade partners. Russian military output now outpaces all of G7 as western media openly admits. Meanwhile, the regime US installed in Ukraine is sacrificing the country for US interests while scumbags in the west cheer this on.

          • groupofcrows@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            11 months ago

            I would recommend people watch YouTuber “Joe Blogs”, his videos are very informative on this topic. The Russian ruble stayed afloat for a while because the central bank had to spend a lot of money to defend it. They cannot afford this now which is why the currency has tanked. They wanted other countries to use rubles when purchasing Russian product but are in such a weak state they had to accept Yuan’s and rupees. Even if the war ended, Russia has lost its most valuable clients in the west. The Russian government controls economic data so it’s hard to know exactly what is happening with economy. Government military spending has increased which would help but how long can they keep doing this? This is artificially lifting the economy and will end when the war ends. Ukraine claims 400,000 Russian casualties, add the Russians who fled earlier in the war, that’s a huge loss in manpower and skills. I see Russian protesters asking for their soldiers to return home since they’ve served their required terms. How many of those loved ones are dead and what will the reaction be like.

            If Russia is winning, why are they asking to negotiate a war they started and have not achieved their goals set for this “3 day special military operation”?

            Russian military output is greater than the west? I’m not going to check this because it doesn’t matter. Do we need to worry that Russia has more shit tier equipment for their soldiers? You’re also buying weapons from Iran and North Korea.

            I feel sorry for the Ukrainian blood being spilled but NATO can easily afford to continue this war indefinitely. Putin might have a strange hold on Russian necks and your bank account but the numbers are working against him.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              This is what happens when you get your information from a guy named Joe Blogs as opposed to actual credible sources. 😂

              Russian rouble being low actually creates more domestic profit for the Russian government selling resources. Also, last I checked rouble is trading at 91 to a dollar which is hardly tanked. Given that it’s generally been trading between 80 and 90 to a dollar.

              Also, not sure where you got the notion that clients in the west were most valuable to Russia. Trading with countries that aren’t trying to undermine Russia is far more preferable from Russian perspective. It’s the western countries, specifically in Europe, that are most hurt by all this. Hence why Russian economy is growing while Europe is going into a recession.

              Hilarious that you call military spending an artificial increase. What does that say about US economy then, weird how nobody applies the same logic there.

              Ukraine claims a lot of things, like the Ghost of Kiev. Meanwhile, the only western sources that provides any methodology shows Russian casualties to be at around 43k https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng

              Russia is not asking to negotiate the war. What they said from the start is that they’re open to negotiations on their terms which have not changed since the start of the war.

              Meanwhile, if you think that NATO can afford to continue the was indefinitely then you have no understanding of how industrial economy works. NATO lacks industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition at the rate being spent in Ukraine. This is openly admitted by NATO.

              It’s incredible that people still believe all the nonsense you wrote even though western media now openly admits that all this is false.

              • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                Also love the implication that you’re a Russian bot “Putin might have a stranglehold on Russian necks and your bank account”

                classic liberals

              • groupofcrows@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                I was going to reply to all the points you made but I read your source and it is excellent, I will use it in the future. https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng

                So you make fun of Joe Blog even though he uses Russian (where available) data and other sources. But let’s use your “reliable” source “which shows Russian casualties of 43,000”. If you had bothered to read more than just the head line you would have seen.

                “approximately 47,000 Russians under the age of 50 had died in the Ukraine war. However, these figures represent only a partial account and do not reflect the full extent of the casualties.”

                “The actual death toll is likely significantly higher.”

                “This week, CIA Director William Burns penned a column in Foreign Affairs estimating the total losses of the Russian army—killed and wounded—at 315,000. At first glance, this figure might seem significantly different from our own count, but in reality, it’s not, and we regard Burns’ estimate as close to the truth.”

                “43,000 obituaries found on social networks suggest approximately 80–90,000 actual deaths.”

                And the 300k estimate is assuming a 3 to 1 wounded to killed ratio. 90,000 killed and (3 times) 270,000 wounded is from Feb 2nd. On that day Ukrainians were claiming ~387,060 casualties, pretty close to the 360,000 from your reliable source.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Nothing in what you quoted contradicts that they can only account for 43k dead using actual methodology. But even if we took your 90k dead with 270k wounded, that doesn’t paint the picture you’re trying to paint because many of the wounded recover and return to service. What you were clearly trying to insinuate in your original comment was that over 400k soldiers were out of action permanently.

                  Meanwhile, one simply has to look back through the failed predictions Joe Blogs made over the past year to see that the guy is utterly clueless. It’s incredible how hucksters can make a youtube channel to spew utter nonsense and people will gobble it up uncritically.

            • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I feel sorry for the Ukrainian blood being spilled but

              It’s kinda sad innocents are being dragged into the woodchipper but

  • CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    Why is Putin still trying to negotiate with the empire of lies? The breaking of the Minsk agreements, as well as the fact that the Nazi Arming and Training Organization expanded east despite agreements not to, should have been more than enough proof that the western snakes will always stab you in the back.

    The only way this war ends is with the dismantling of the Maidan regime and the demilitarization of Ukraine.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Putin has been calling for negotiations since he took power 20 years ago. He’s been appeasing the West and their insistence on marching the world’s first transnational nuclear military to Russia’s borders while asking for negotiations the entire time. In 2014 he ordered the invasion of Crimea in response to USA-backed militias violently taking over Ukraine by storming the capital and forcing the president to flee under threat of death and he was still talking about international agreements and negotiations. Negotiations have always been on the table.

  • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    11 months ago

    There’s no negotiation needed. Russia moving out of Ukraine and paying for all damage until everything is pre crimea. If that is all done, rebuild and paid for, then, they can negotiate for less punishment on top. That’s the kind of negotiation you start because both sides have something to gain and not one to keep his unjustified war territory.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          There’s a pretty good chance they won’t be able to keep this up for another year. Ukraine is running out of manpower, and NATO lacks the industrial base to supply weapons at the rate they’re used now that existing stocks are running dry.

          On top of that, US is now getting sucked into a war in Western Asia.

    • UnculturedSwine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Even if there is no punishment on top, if Putin ends up losing all he gained, heads will roll including Putin’s. If he can gain any amount of land in a negotiation and end the war, he can go back to his people and say that it was all worth it and many of them will buy it.

      Edit: *many

  • taanegl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    11 months ago

    See, there’s this slow motion guillotine hanging over Putin right now, and for each month of successive losses, it’ll slowly be lowered until it reaches his neck.

    Then, after a new favourite of the oligarchy and the generals have rubbed a few backs and made a few promises, said favourite will come up from behind and place his foot on the blade to force it through Putin’s neck.

    That’s only speculation though.

    • Stalins_Spoon@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t know which world you live in, Ukraine is in political turmoil rn, while UAF conscripts die en masse.

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      This was typed one-handed and cross-posted to the Ask Penthouse column; I can practically hear the lack of lubricant in that dry, crusty beating.

    • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      106
      ·
      11 months ago

      Dude, the war has been over for over a year, Ukraine lost, they were never going to win, it was just the west trying to use their dead bodies to damage russia.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Russia have lost nearly 400,000 people so far. They’ve crippled their economy and industry, not to mention scuppered any progress they made since the 90s. Ruined their growth in international standing and currently bending over for China and getting reamed on tech for the war by Iran. They have lost countless flagship military installments and their hold over the black sea.

        In the nearly 10 years since their initial invasion they have captured no more than 20% of Ukraine most of which was captured in 2014s Crimean annexation.

        • davel@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Ruined their growth in international standing

          They’ve ruined their standing with the imperial core, while their standing with the semi-periphery and periphery has grown.

          They’ve crippled their economy and industry

          Their industrial capacity has been untouched, and is in fact growing. The Ruble is doing alright, too.
          Bloomberg: Russian Manufacturing Booms With Economy on War Footing

          Russian industry expanded for the third straight year in 2023 as the government’s spending on its prolonged war on Ukraine helped counter the impact of sanctions imposed by the US and its allies.

          Industrial production increased by 3.5% last year after 0.6% growth in 2022, according to data published Wednesday by the Federal Statistics Service. The rise in manufacturing among industries benefiting from military orders last year more than offset a slump in mining output, data show.

          The figures show businesses have adapted to “the current external economic conditions,” the Economy Ministry said in a statement late Wednesday.

          The scale of Russia’s transition into a war economy was underlined by the three fastest-growing categories of manufacturing — which include goods such as bombs and weapons, aircraft and rocket engines, and ships and combat vehicles. Output under categories like “metal goods,” “computers, electronics and optics,” and “other transport” jumped by as much as a third compared to 2022.

          The 1.3% drop from last year in output from extraction industries, like mining, oil and gas, was largely due to a voluntary reduction in oil production, the Economy Ministry said in a separate statement. Russia, in coordination with its OPEC+ allies, pledged last year to reduce its crude production and maintain the cuts through 2024. The country stopped disclosing data on oil output last year.

          The latest data offer some support for recent claims by Russian officials that the country has boosted its military production despite efforts by the Group of Seven and the European Union to break the Kremlin’s war machine through stringent sanctions including an oil price cap. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Monday that production of missiles for air defense systems had doubled, without providing figures. Previously, he said tank production had also increased by seven times.

          The Kremlin plans to keep the economy on a war footing for at least the next three years, according to its budget plans, ramping up spending on arms production. That’s as Ukraine is running short of weapons to protect its cities, and vital aid from the US and the EU has been tied up by political disputes.

          The war, now approaching its third year, has settled into a stalemate, making a steady supply of weapons and munitions crucial to both sides.

          Russian defense plants have been put on round-the-clock production schedules, and reports abound in local media of converted shopping centers and bakeries that now also manufacture military drones. Kalashnikov Concern, Russia’s flagship arms manufacturer, has developed new types of weapons that it plans to present at the World Defense Show 2024 in Saudi Arabia next week, according to state defense-industry conglomerate Rostec.

          Russia has also lined up supplies of weapons and other support from Iran and North Korea. Satellite imagery since October shows a steady flow of trade between North Korea and Russia that South Korea estimates includes more than 2 million rounds of artillery and several ballistic missiles.

          • Squizzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            They spent a long time building relationships across Europe, growing ties with the west. From sports sponsorships, to infrastructure partnerships to joint ventures like the ISS. They threw all of it away.

            They also made a balls of the invasion, embarrassing themselves, losing a huge amount of high ranking officials and pissed off China in doing so.

            They have tacit support from India because India is getting flooded with cheap oil but that won’t last forever as the Saudis get more and more annoyed and the US continues to ramp up production.

            And their operations in Africa are hampered by an international warrant meaning Putin can’t attend meetings of their new “bloc”.

            They are on a war footing, war booms the economy but their currency is artificially inflated and they have hemorrhaged young graduates and skilled professionals.so manufacturing might be up because every available man is getting paid a pittance to shove artillery together but the workers left in country fear conscription and can’t afford eggs.

          • kefirchik@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            These are confirmed and identified casualties using 3rd party evidence. From the source you linked,

            However, these figures represent only a partial account and do not reflect the full extent of the casualties. […] This week, CIA Director William Burns penned a column in Foreign Affairs estimating the total losses of the Russian army—killed and wounded—at 315,000. At first glance, this figure might seem significantly different from our own count, but in reality, it’s not, and we regard Burns’ estimate as close to the truth.

            The reality is that we will not know for a long time the true numbers, but this 43k is the absolute minimum number of dead Russian combatants.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              11 months ago

              While 43 is obviously a lower bound, it gives a rough idea of the overall casualties which aren’t going to be an order of magnitude higher.

      • CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Counterpoint: the burger reich can still make many more dead Ukrainian bodies to attempt to harm Russia.

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Some of the neocon types have expressed that this was their intent, they are happy with the money spent because it harms russia. I personally dont care one bit about russia, but they are pushing us into WW3 for some strange reason.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        How much ground has Russia gained in the last year?

        Also, remember when Russia said they’d get to Kyiv in 2 days? It’s been a long 2 days.

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          The border has changed very little since I think fall of 2022 if I am remembering right. The important thing is that the median or mean age of soldiers for Ukraine has gone from low 30s to 43. They are out of troops, its over.

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        11 months ago

        #BlueAnon report:

        • Reporter: [REDACTED]
        • Reason: Russky spy, no /s so prolly serious)
              • davel@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Not sure, a few dozen it feels like; less than a hundred I think. We usually get a few Chinese or Russian shill/troll/bot complaints from the MSNBC-pilled.

                • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I feel like we are very similar in our understanding, but we ended up on two different side of the spectrum, where I think the government is the problem, and you think the government is the solution.

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      When can we expect the United States out of the dozens of countries they’ve illegally invaded and neocolonized, then? Can I expect you to sit there and be quiet if another world power decided they wanted to arm and train Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso to start driving the settler military and its eagerly-tapdancing puppets out of the Motherland the same way you sit on your hands for Ukraine?

      Or is this just about maintaining hegemon over the vassals and encircling, then unlimitedly genociding an entity that hasn’t even been Soviet for 40 years?

  • a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    All part of the attempt to sway the next election. Gives Cucker Tarlson an interview where he (Putin) proceeds to paint all of his actions as a poor humble Russian leader just trying to protect his own people from the big bad Ukranians. Then follows it up with an offer to negotiate peace, which shockingly the evil dictator Biden refuses to do. If only we had someone like the Cheeto Benito who’s interested in peace leading the US, everything would be so much better for everyone! Queue troll farm spamming Twitter

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Next time you wanna reverse the flow of your internal plumbing and spew fecal matter all over your keyboard, do it on an account that isn’t a two-week-old keyboard smash. Maybe get some more posts in your history. One could see what this one is from orbit.

  • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    81
    ·
    11 months ago

    Not a single paragraph about the actual demands of Russia. Which they have stated often enough. Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep. This is what this whole war was about. But somehow this is never seriously discussed in western media.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If this war was about having NATO on their doorstep, why is it an invasion of a non-NATO country twenty years after the first neighbours of Russia joined NATO? It’s never seriously discussed because it’s either a lie or unfathomably stupid, and whichever of those two it is doesn’t much matter.

      Just for a second, imagine you’re a neutral country in eastern Europe. Russia has been fucking with Georgia and Moldova since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now it invades Ukraine for the second time within a decade. Russia has never touched a NATO country despite bordering several of them for literally decades. And then Russia acts all shocked when you say you want into NATO

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Because Europe never invaded Russia through the border at Belarus. They always invade Russia through Ukraine. First Napoleon, then the Third Reich.

        Russia was appeasing the fascist West as they expanded their multinational nuclear military without democratic accountability into territories populated with leave-behind armies of fascists that they created. Ukraine was the obvious redline because it is the dominant strategic border, as demonstrated by all European and Russian military strategists in history.

        You’re confused about history because you don’t understand it.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah and Russia protested strongly every time. But Ukraine was their red line. Just because you didn’t read it in western media doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

        I don’t condone the invasion but it was predictable and a colossal “failure” of diplomacy if you look at it charitably. At worst it was a long term plan to force Russia into a conflict with the aid of western media to obscure the reason why this war was happening. Russia is acting just like the US would.

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          11 months ago

          So invading Ukraine fixes what for Russia, exactly? The fastest way to make more of Russia’s neighbours join NATO is to show them that they’re safer in NATO. Like Finland.

          Ukrainians mostly weren’t interested in joining NATO until Russia took Crimea. Russia pushed Ukraine towards NATO.

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            11 months ago

            “Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008. Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych”. Then the Euromaiden protests happened. Then Crimea etc.

            It’s pretty safe to assume that both Russia and the US meddled in the respective election through NGOs and whatnot. My point is that these are geopolitical games which both sides play and which should be reported as such. Then we’d have a chance to protest for peace negotiations. But as is there is an overwhelming amount of pro-war sentiment.

            • Skua@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              11 months ago

              Public support for joining NATO among polled Ukrainians was very clearly the minority up until Russia invaded.

              But as is there is an overwhelming amount of pro-war sentiment.

              There’s an overwhelming amount of anti-invasion sentiment. People that support arming Ukraine support Ukraine’s right to not have chunks carved out of it just because its neighbour has a bigger army.

            • Vilian@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              11 months ago

              they couldn’t join NATO because of crimea, explain what they really want

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          What are you talking about? There were no concrete plans for Ukraine to enter NATO prior to the invasion in 2014.

            • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              So what? My point was that there were no concrete plans to expand to Ukraine when Putin took Crimea in 2014. If the problem is NATO expansion why invade a country where NATO is not expanding to?

              • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                The intent to annex Ukraine as a forward operating base for NATO dates back to the fucking 90s under Clinton. Do you need to see a todo list before you are satisfied? Thank god you’re not responsible for national security of a nation of millions.

        • rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          plan to force Russia into a conflict

          Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.

          Did the Poland “forced” Hitler to start the WW2 the same way?

          • trebuchet@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s hardly unprecedented. The USA felt forced into an aggressive response to the Soviets putting missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              It was the other way, the “Cuban” missile crisis happened when USA wasn’t happy when USSR responded in kind to USA placing missiles in Turkey. So it should be called “Turkish missile crisis” and really “USA missile crisis”.
              Just the western popular propaganda conveniently omits who was the instigator of entire issue, but it’s not that hard to find.

            • rdri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              11 months ago

              So it was Soviet plan to start the aggression? Is it the same with Finland? When can we expect Putin to invade it?

                • rdri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Read the message you were replying to. I asked specifically how do you force a country to invade a other country (that is not yours). You told about Cuba, so naturally I wanted to confirm if you mean the situation was caused by desire of Soviets to start the aggression.

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.

            Well imagine if China were to make a military pact with Mexico and started delivering “defensive” weapon systems to them. There would be protests, sanctions, meddling and attempts for regime change, and if those didn’t work there would be invasion.

            For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.

            • rdri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              11 months ago

              Imagine justifying real war by imagining things.

              For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.

              These sentences don’t make sense as the response for the quotation.

              • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                Do you live in some alternative reality where the US didn’t invade Irak and Afghanistan? And is bombing countries all over the world for whatever reason? Oh let me guess that is TOTALLY different!

                • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I doubt many here will defend the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these invasions should have happened, BUT no they are not the same. In case of Afghanistan the US supported the Northern alliance in a pre-existing civil war. Iraq was lead by a brutal dictator who had been involved in wars of aggression (Kuwait) and genocide (Kurds).

                • rdri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  We all live in a reality where the US did invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is the thought process of me trying to understand your reasoning behind mentioning these events in current context:

                  • The US asked many times for Iraq and Afghanistan to not try to oppose them. According to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan bombed its own citizens (who call themselves the people of the US) for several (at least 8) years and finally the US decided to intervene.

                  • But in fact it must have been caused by someone else, like China or Russia. They provided Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons and/or proposed them the place in alliance against the US, which is why the US didn’t have a choice.

                  • From the very start of those invasions, the whole world decided to stand against the US and provided Iraq and Afghanistan with all the weapons and resources they could need in order to protect themselves. Massive sanctions were applied against the US to stop its war machine.

                  • The US massively increased pressure on free speech and started to jail its own citizens who speak against the war. This also caused at least 1 percent of the US population to migrate elsewhere.

                  • Because this all (or at least some of it) happened with the US, there is no problem in assuming that it would be fine to happen with other country (like Russia) and nobody should say a word against that country’s right for protecting its interests.

                  If this is what really happened then you are correct and this not “totally different” but exactly the same.

                  But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.

        • Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          11 months ago

          I guess ignoring how Ukrainians ran the russian puppet heading their country out of the country just before the Crimean invasion of 2014 is convenient for your point.

          Appeasement does not work. It has never worked. It didnt work in Sudetenland, it didnt work in Crimea, and it would never have worked with Donbas, either.

            • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              CW: “Foxes and Wolves” quote

              “The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the “smiling” fox.” – Malcolm X

              Republicans and Democrats descend from the same genetic ancestors: white supremacy and Amerikan exceptionalism. Still a dog, just built different between the two.

          • CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I guess ignoring how Ukrainians ran the russian puppet heading their country out of the country just before the Crimean invasion of 2014 is convenient for your point.

            Being willing to trade with Russia at all makes you their puppet apparently.

          • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You mean when the occupiers of Turtle Island couped Poroshenko Yanukovych and installed a regime full of Banderite proto-nazis on the take from Anglo settlers? Yeah, I remember that; my next door neighbor got his old home ransacked, raided, and eventually flattened by the fighting that came to his city. He barely made it out alive; and STILL has to look up and down the street before he opens his door so we can talk-- just so he can make sure someone’s not trundling down the drive to drag him back. I remember that well.

              • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                “appeasement”… “sudetenland” lol who do you think you’re fooling.

                • Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Oh no, i compared facsists to other fascists. But keep going with the false equivalences, thats certainly the way to convince the voters thats working for u.

                  In case u other readers havent been paying attention, russia is still threatening Poland, Lithuania, and Finland just as they have been for their whole history.

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Appeasement does not work. It has never worked. It didnt work in Sudetenland

            And it didn’t work for Russia when they appeased the USA as they marched NATO all across Eastern Europe and installed nuclear capabilities aimed at Russia. Russia has appeased the USA for too long. They decided to act in Ukraine finally because Ukraine is THE strategic red line. Both Napoleon and The Third Reich invaded Russia through Ukraine because it is strategically the best path. The USA took up nearly every other borderland with Russia except Ukraine, saving it for last, and Russia appeased and appeased. It stopped at Ukraine.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      It is discussed, it doesn’t stand up to any reasoning as to why they captured the Crimean peninsula. They also stated that it was because Ukraine couldn’t stop the rise of Nazism. So which is it? NATO or Nazis?

      Ukraine is an independent country and if they want to join NATO they can, having a legitimate grievance doesn’t excuse an invasion.

      And even if it was true and was accepted, what a disaster it was because it bolstered a floundering NATO, grew membership and increased military spending across the continent. Truly a genius move.

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      Then turning Ukraine into Russian territory is a bit counter productive no? That would literally bring NATO to Russias doorstep.

    • FatLegTed@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

      But NATO already is on their doorstep. Norway, Estonia, Poland etc. Even USA is only a few mils away across the Bering Strait.

      This is not about Ukraine joining NATO, that’s a convenience.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I think you’re missing a paragraph that tells how the border between Russia and NATO increased twofold since (and as the result of) the invasion.

      “Hey it’s all about NATO. We always wanted less NATO at our doorsteps, and you can see we tried our best to achieve this. That backfired, yes, but we ask you once again to… Ask all those countries nicely to withdraw from NATO. Having NATO at our borders is not healthy for our people, you see… With all those bio laboratories… And parent№1+parent№2 policy that you force on everyone…”

    • Z3k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      While that may or may not be the case this does not permit interference of sovereign state from acting in its own best in own best interest.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Agreed - but it does make it somewhat of an “own goal”. The invasion was predictable. Western PR says it was totally surprising but it wasn’t.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          What’s wild is that Western PR was actually saying that Russia was going to invade and Ukraine kept saying that they weren’t.

    • Holyginz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because they don’t get the option to choose. It’s not that difficult. Those countries weren’t clamoring to join NATO until Russia invaded, so its their own fault.

    • randy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      11 months ago

      Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep.

      NATO is not the anti-Russia club. They’re a defensive pact. Why would you be concerned about your neighbours agreeing to defend each other? Like a neighbourhood watch, perhaps. Maybe you’d be upset if you’re planning to do the thing they’re defending against. Which is all the more reason for those neighbours to band together.

        • randy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s how Putin claims to perceive it, but that’s also what he would claim if his actual goal was to control his neighbours by force. And don’t forget Finland and Sweden responded to the invasion of Ukraine by joining NATO. If Russia perceived NATO as a threat, then Finland joining would make them more likely to be attacked. Clearly Finland feels NATO is making them safer or they wouldn’t have joined. And since then, Russia has moved tons of their military away from NATO borders and into Ukraine.

          In other words, I trust the actions of Finland and Russia more than I trust the words of Russia.

      • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yugoslavia would levy a disagreement about NATO’s status as a “defensive pact”; as would every Nazi who’s historically headed that “dEfEnSiVe AlLiAnCe”. They’re just bodies on tap for the Five-Eyed Empire. As offensive as they’re needed, at that.

        • randy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          You know, you have a point. But I’ll note both instances had the UN request NATO intervention. Russia could have blocked either with their veto in the UN Security Council, but they didn’t.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I mean, no, the UN security council doesn’t have any power, they would have still gone through with the invasion.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Not to mention the actual voting on intervention was in the start of 1992, when the comprador Russian government (the same one btw that got promised by USA they won’t add former socialist countries to NATO) was choking on USA boot.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      which is a perfectly reasonable demand.

      but since the US wants blood…

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, demanding your neighbours all remain weak enough for you to continue bullying is not perfectly reasonable at all

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          11 months ago

          as opposed to having your biggest aggressor right in your doorstep?

          • Skua@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            11 months ago

            All of the countries near Russia that joined NATO did so because they already have their biggest aggressor on their doorsteps.

              • Skua@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                If buying stuff from the other side is your yardstick, NATO clearly wasn’t a threat to Russia. Germany, Italy, France, and America were all some of Russia’s largest import sources in 2021.

                • umbrella@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  which all sounds really dumb if russia was that big of an aggressor in the first place. either that or you know, they werent.

                • umbrella@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  so save a couple of things, almost exactly as they have been before motherfuckers started provoking war with russia

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      My friend it was never about NATO. There is no prospective out there based in fact where NATO has anything to do with it.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep.

      Have you looked at a map of Europe lately?

    • LittleBorat2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t want people like you in my comments but no one acknowledges that. So weird.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Because it’s invaders demanding unprotected targets. It’s the dumbest propaganda imaginable. What is it doing in your mouth?

      “We want the Stop Russia Invading Shit Alliance to be further away from Russia! To prove we’re serious, Russia will invade countries that aren’t yet part of the alliance.”

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I wonder if you guys realize that Russia is achieving it’s war objectives? West-Ukraine won’t join NATO anytime soon, because they know what will happen. This war also has seriously long term destabilizing effects on Europe - at least on their democracies (refugees, tax burden / austerity).

        It’s ludicrous to say that Russia’s protests about NATO are bogus - because they protested about it for decades, ever since the US broke their agreement with Gorbachev to not expand NATO eastwards. It’s just a historical fact that you want to alter in order to justify not negotiating. I’m used to these “alternative facts” level of brainwashing from trumpists but not from liberals.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          More countries joined NATO, Russia’s slaughtering a generation of Russians, their money is gone, their equipment is gone, and their big scary mercenary force openly tried to overthrow the government. Wow. What victorious progress.

          At this rate NATO’s gonna disband because there won’t be a Russia.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Their demands are irrelevant while on the soil of a sovereign nation without authorization or sufficient leverage. Both of which are not only lacking but severely so.

    • CultHero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

      This whole shit storm has been about one thing. Putins legacy as the czar that reformed the USSR. That’s it. He wants to lift the iron curtain high once more. It’s all dick stroking by a madman.

  • kookaburra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    58
    ·
    11 months ago

    U.S. and Ukrainian officials say that the best Ukraine’s military can hope for in the coming year, especially without more American aid, is to defend its current positions. Even so, Biden officials say they are not entertaining the idea of pressing Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to negotiate with Mr. Putin.

    This is the most eloquent. If you can’t fight a war for win, then it’s reasonable to try to gain some better results through negotiations. But the white masters don’t care about the losses of aboriginals.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Are you implying that white masters exist and implying that a European country can’t decide what’s better for it without consulting with white masters at the same time? Can I say that you are brainwashed by black masters?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Sorry… Are Ukrainians the aboriginals in this scenario or are the Russians the aboriginals?

      Because I’m pretty sure they’re both descended from Slavs and Vikings.

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      11 months ago

      You know who has total power to end this war? Putin. Just get the fuck out of Ukraine and it’s over.

      There’s really nothing to negotiate.

      • CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        This suggestion is shit that totally has a chance of happening and isn’t just idealistic pie in the sky cope from seething natoids. /s

      • naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        11 months ago

        They literally were negotiating at the start of the war for this exact outcome: Russia pulls out and Ukraine maintains neutrality.

        Johnson threw a wrench in those plans.

        • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          11 months ago

          Sorry what? You’re blaming Boris Johnson for this now?

          One person has the power to put an end to this: the person who started it. Putin.

          • Skua@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’ve seen this Boris Johnson argument several times on here and never once seen anything even remotely approaching a convincing explanation of what leverage Boris ever had to do this. Like a deal for a white peace with Russia was on the table and Boris somehow twisted Zelenskyy’s arm into fighting by threatening to not send weapons that wouldn’t be necessary if there was peace anyway?

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              It’s an idiotic straw man to claim Johnson had some personal leverage over Ukraine. What’s actually being said is that Bojo was delivering the message from NATO to Ukraine that if they accepted the deal then NATO would not act as their guarantor and they’d be left on their own.

        • rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ukraine was never going to abort neutrality lol. Being a NATO member does not affect neutrality.

          Also remember the Budapest Memorandum? Ukraine literally gave up nuclear weapons as instructed by Russia, for the promise that was broken.

          I’d say the wrench was thrown by someone else. Or, rather, someone hit their own head by a wrench good enough to lose all mind.

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Do you still believe the UK is the empire where the sun never sets?? How the F would the UK even be able to influence these events.

    • cranakis@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think that if Russia got the fuck out of Ukraine, we’d happily let the war end.

    • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      or because all putin has to do is stop invading ukraine. he doesn’t get to invade and then negotiate to keep part of the place he invaded

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s literally how all negotiations work. Hostage negotiations - you take hostages and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for release. War negotiations - you dominate a space and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for ending violence. Unless you’re the USA, where you dominate a region after the majority of forces are already defeated and then when someone tries to negotiate their surrender you nuke 200k civilians.

        • WldFyre@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Unless you’re the USA, where you dominate a region after the majority of forces are already defeated and then when someone tries to negotiate their surrender you nuke 200k civilians.

          Damn when did that happen?? Sounds truly awful

      • ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        he doesn’t get to invade and then negotiate to keep part of the place he invaded

        Are you at all familiar with any history at all? How do you think such treaties usually go? Or did you think borders spent the last couple millenia shifting mysteriously without reason?

        • commandar@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.

          The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.

          • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Are you so naive to think that Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and even the 2013 coup in Ukraine were not acts of conquest of the US empire? Perhaps you’re correct that the wider international community has rejected acts of conquest, but this certainly doesn’t include the USA, who is quite literally a rogue state.

          • CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.

            The international community in question:

    • Doesntpostmuch@possumpat.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      11 months ago

      Bad take. Why negotiate with an aggressor who is literally invading and trying to absorb a neighbor. You would be rewarding that behavior and Russia gets to stop their unpopular war at the same time.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Smooth brain take. You can’t negotiate unless there are stakes on both sides. Why are you people so daft?

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I mean, Putin won’t either, the negotiations are just for gaslighting and propaganda. Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on and even without Ukraine intends to increase military spending. They don’t need it, but it’s not up to them if it ends.

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        11 months ago

        Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on

        This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, “US has plenty of wars” -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.

        I’m not condoning Putin btw. It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants. In the end it’s Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          If America was actively attempting to annex Sonora I’d be happy to make the same arguments defending China if it armed Mexico

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about “Chinese weapons on our doorstep” would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.

            • Skua@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong.

              Or

              It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression

              It can’t be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia’s aggression.

              • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?

                What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.

                So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn’t happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.

                • Skua@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  So what do you do?

                  Russia could stop making all of its neighbours feel like they need protection from it, perhaps.

                  (mostly exclusive!) EU trade

                  Alright, please explain to me step-by-step how you expect Ukraine to join two separate and incompatible free trade areas. Because that’s what the argument at the time was about: which FTA to join, the EU-led DCFTA or the Russia-led CISFTA

                  Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime

                  “The EU wanted a trade deal with Ukraine and Russia wanted to choose Ukraine’s government.” Why are you acting like these are equivalent?

                  But that doesn’t happen

                  I don’t think it’s my place to tell Ukrainians to submit to subjugation

                • rdri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades.

                  As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.

                  Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin’s struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.

            • mashbooq@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              11 months ago

              it’s 100% about moral arguments of right and wrong. just because the US’s wars are evil 99% of the time isn’t a reason to reject the one good one

        • rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants.

          You’re clueless. Ukraine was precisely correct in its desire for additional protection from aggression.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I meant Russia.

          Nobody’s keeping them there but them. Blame whatever boogieman you like - it’s their soldiers in someone else’s borders.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            No blame here! I’m just stating a fact that the United States doesn’t want this war to ever end. It has a material interest in keeping Russia bogged down as long as possible. This is true regardless of whether you blame Russia or not.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I understand who controls Ukraine’s army and government and who tells them when they’re allowed to negotiate.

                I’m not talking about blame. I thought I made that clear.

                • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  What you’re doing is blame whether you call it that or not.

                  There is nothing to negotiate. Russia invaded and can fuck off at any time. It is entirely up to them.

                  And nobody told Ukraine not to negotiate. Russia asked America. America is saying: ask Ukraine.