• @SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    155 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.

    • @UnculturedSwine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      5 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

  • Jack
    link
    fedilink
    145 months ago

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

    • Legate Damar
      link
      fedilink
      125 months ago

      That’s the reason they’re rejecting it. From the article:

      “Barring a Ukrainian demand signal” for peace talks, “there’s unlikely to be a push from Washington,” he said.

  • @taanegl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    125 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.

    • @CableMonster@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      -835 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
        375 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 [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          5 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
            175 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.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        105 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
          -15 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 [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -65 months ago

        #BlueAnon report:

        • Reporter: [REDACTED]
        • Reason: Russky spy, no /s so prolly serious)
              • davel [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                5 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
                  -15 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.

  • NaibofTabr
    link
    English
    35 months ago

    Skepticism remains high about the Russian leader’s intentions after he told Tucker Carlson that the war in Ukraine could be settled with a peace deal.

    What’s there to be skeptical about? Putin has made his intentions pretty clear over the past 2 years. His idea of a “peace deal” is basically for Ukraine to surrender and give him whatever he wants.

  • @a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -15 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

  • @kookaburra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    -395 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.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      fedilink
      55 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.

    • @rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      35 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?

  • @LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    -465 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
      link
      fedilink
      53
      edit-2
      5 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

      • @LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -135 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
          link
          fedilink
          275 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
            45 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
              link
              fedilink
              235 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.

        • @rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          45 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
            65 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
              25 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
              -65 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
                  -55 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
            5
            edit-2
            5 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
              -25 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
                35 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
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  05 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
                  05 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
          -45 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.

    • @Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      185 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.

    • @FatLegTed@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      175 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.

    • @randy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      105 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
          05 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.

        • @randy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          15 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
            25 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
              15 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.

    • @rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      5 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…”

    • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75 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.

        • Skua
          link
          fedilink
          35 months ago

          By “the Guardian” here what you mean is “an opinion piece from the fucking Cato Institute”

          It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.

          The answers are South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria

      • @LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -15 months ago

        Russia said since 2014 this was about NATO. Even before they protested strongly the NATO expansion. So how can it not be about NATO? You’re either completely uninformed or lying.

          • davel [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Uh… yes, we do? I mean not only about NATO, but definitely also about NATO. Even liberals like Jeffrey Sachs and radlibs like Noam Chomsky and undead ghouls like Henry Kissinger agree.

            • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -4
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              It’s an element but anyone saying the war was started because of NATO is clearly bullshitting. Now if you were to ask why the war is still going on despite both sides wanting peace, NATO is a pretty succinct and accurate explanation.

        • NaibofTabr
          link
          English
          15 months ago

          since 2014

          You mean since they invaded Crimea and had to invent some narrative to justify their military conquest?

        • @mashbooq
          link
          05 months ago

          and US fascists say banning trans people is about protecting children. only a fool believes the narrative of a fascist

          • @LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            35 months ago

            Well if you insist on not taking Russia seriously - then you must be very pleased with the result. Maybe you should call Putin a Hitler a few more times, that will solve everything :D

          • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I’m a Lemmygrad Andy, if there’s any tankie in this conversation, it’s me. Person’s on ee they’re probably only parroting outdated propaganda because they’re a neo-reactionary, (or an outright fascist) not because they’re communist.

            Putin’s agenda of steering the American right into self-destruction to neutralize their geopolitical opponent is going to result in a lot of lot of neo-fascists hitting themselves out of confusion, so keep your eyes open for that.

    • @Z3k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      65 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
        15 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.

    • @Holyginz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      25 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.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      fedilink
      25 months ago

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

      Have you looked at a map of Europe lately?

    • NaibofTabr
      link
      English
      15 months ago

      This is a very poor and very thin justification for invading another country, killing its citizens and kidnapping children.

      It’s not being seriously discussed in western media because it’s not a serious argument. It’s very obviously a transparent excuse for an ambitious tyrant to try to acquire more territory through military force.

        • NaibofTabr
          link
          English
          15 months ago

          Oh please, we don’t have to take what they say seriously in order to take them seriously. The only reason to pay any attention to their propaganda is to understand what they think is important enough to tell lies about.

          • @LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            15 months ago

            Yes and the reason to not take them seriously is in order to completely demonize Russia and avoid negotiations, so as to continue the war indefinitely. Who profits from this?

    • @theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -45 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.

      • Skua
        link
        fedilink
        145 months ago

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

          • Skua
            link
            fedilink
            115 months ago

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

              • Skua
                link
                fedilink
                105 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
                  -75 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.

    • @CultHero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -45 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.

    • @Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      795 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.

      • @naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        -135 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
          175 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
            link
            fedilink
            145 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?

        • @Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          75 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.

        • @rdri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          65 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.

    • katy ✨
      link
      fedilink
      395 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

    • @Doesntpostmuch@possumpat.io
      link
      fedilink
      265 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.

    • @RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      5 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
        -75 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
          link
          fedilink
          55 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
            -15 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
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              5 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
                15 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -15 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
                  -25 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
              link
              -35 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
          -15 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.