Im no fan of US imperialism, but you all conveniently leave out the alternative to NATO aid in Ukraine right now.
Nope it's mentioned all the time: diplomacy, peace talks, and to make that even possible, establish legitimacy by abiding by your own agreements. The undermining of all of these things has been discussed at length. They don't really need to be rehashed in our spaces for the benefit of new people that don't ask questions, though.
Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia.
lol RF could take over UA any time they wanted to if they took the NATO approach of completely destroying civilian life and essential resources via bombing. Military "aid" to Ukraine just keeps Ukrainian soldiers getting killed en masse, which is characterized by Russia as their compromise version of Denazification.
As far as Im concerned, Putins expansion is really helping NATOs by giving them a justification to exist
NATO obviously requires no credible justification to exist. This doesn't matter.
I find it completely unreasonable to request a peace talk whilst in a neighboring sovereign nation invading. That's lunacy to think Ukrainians are being the unreasonable ones here in regards to a peace talk.
Of course I do, I have family in Ukraine. I'd love to know how 2014 infringed on Russia's sovereignty, though, since that's the only way I could see it remotely justifying what Russia is doing today.
Is that your actual answer? That's all you think that happened in 2014? I'm asking because it's pretty impossible to gauge wether you're being a smug idiot or just an idiot right now.
Getting an answer out of a lib really is like pulling teeth, you're completely incapable of good faith discussion. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? Why do you refuse to just engage in good faith with those that respond to you? Are you incapable of being a smugh shitheel?
You said Russia didn't unilaterally invade Ukraine, because of what happened in 2014. I poked fun at how ridiculous that was and now you refuse to explain what you meant. Now you're just projecting and insulting me instead of explaining what you mean and how Russia was threatened in any way that justifies Russia's actions.
I know what happened in 2014, again, I have family in Ukraine. Are you going to explain your reasoning or are you just going to get yourself off on how much smarter you are than me, and how great your argument/discussion skills are, without giving anything of substance?
You said Russia didn't unilaterally invade Ukraine, because of what happened in 2014.
I've so far said nothing about wether or not Russia invaded Ukraine. I've literally only asked you about what happened in 2014. So far you've failed to answer.
Now you're just projecting and insulting me instead of explaining what you mean
Yeah, like you've been doing all the way through. Answer the question.
I know what happened in 2014,
Then tell me. Why is it so hard to just answer a question? What happened in 2014?
You're the one making claims, you tell me what you think happened that justifies what Russia's doing, or even provoked them in some way
What claims have I made? Quote them to me please. I've literally only asked you to answer the question, WHICH YOU STILL HAVENT DONE. Why is it so difficult?
In response to someone saying Russia invaded unilaterally, you referenced what happened in 2014, as if that provoked or justified Russia's current actions. That is your argument, you should explain it. Unless you're just Just Asking Questions.
I'm open to actually discussing it with you if you'll actually explain what you mean and why you feel that way, because I've been following the situation for years and don't know how one would come to that conclusion.
you referenced what happened in 2014, as if that provoked or justified Russia's current actions.
I'm not the user that referenced it. Once again: I've literally only asked you to answer the question. Had I been the one to state the question initially, you still wouldn't be able to make that conclusion, it is a huge assumption that that would be the line of reasoning, angle of argument or anything else. It could just as easily have been a way to see where we disagree, create a common basis from which to have an argument, to help illustrate a point of larger context or something else entirely. It is common for a discussion to create a basis of shared understanding from which we can then diverge or argue.
Im open to actually discussing it with you if you'll actually explain what you mean and why you feel that way.
No thanks. Its pretty clear you're not capable of pleasant or good faith discussion, instead choosing weird debate tactics, condescention and strawmanning me. I've literally only asked you to answer a question, and you haven't been able to fulfill this simple request. It's pretty clear any extended conversation would just be even worse.
Maybe when you're less of an antagonistic debatelord.
I find it completely unreasonable to request a peace talk whilst in a neighboring sovereign nation invading.
You have a very funny idea about the realities of war. By your logic most could never end. Wars are resolved through diplomacy or full collapse and loss. Your sociopathic ideas about what is "reasonable" devalues the lives and well-being of Ukrainians living through war.
This is liberal "moral victory" nonsense that no serious person believes.
That's lunacy to think Ukrainians are being the unreasonable ones here in regards to a peace talk.
Thank you for conceding my point and implicitly retracting the claim I replied to.
When in the history of ever did a nation willingly withdraw from its enemy before even holding peace talks?
Did the US withdraw from Mexico before they started hashing out Guadalupe Hidalgo?
Did Germany withdraw from Russia before negotiating Brest-Litovsk?
Even the 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' US negotiated with the Taliban before leaving Afghanistan.
It’s a deal, and withdrawal is one of the terms. You don’t do it before the deal has been made. That gives up all leverage.
And Ukraine has already demanded they get absolutely everything, including Crimea. If you want a deal to be everything you want and nothing you don’t, you need an unconditional surrender, not peace talks. Good luck getting Ukrainian tanks into Moscow.
Nope it's mentioned all the time: diplomacy, peace talks, and to make that even possible, establish legitimacy by abiding by your own agreements. The undermining of all of these things has been discussed at length. They don't really need to be rehashed in our spaces for the benefit of new people that don't ask questions, though.
lol RF could take over UA any time they wanted to if they took the NATO approach of completely destroying civilian life and essential resources via bombing. Military "aid" to Ukraine just keeps Ukrainian soldiers getting killed en masse, which is characterized by Russia as their compromise version of Denazification.
NATO obviously requires no credible justification to exist. This doesn't matter.
I find it completely unreasonable to request a peace talk whilst in a neighboring sovereign nation invading. That's lunacy to think Ukrainians are being the unreasonable ones here in regards to a peace talk.
So, no peace talks during war time, got it.
No fighting in the war room either
A war that Russia unilaterally started. They are not reliable negotiators.
So no peace talks during war time.
What happened in 2014?
Ah yes, 2014, that was when Ukraine invaded Russia, right?
Answer the question, what happened in 2014?
For it to justify Russia invading Ukraine, it must have been something like Ukraine infringing on Russia's sovereignty, right?
You don't know? Yoruo speak with a lot of confidence on this conflict, surely you must know the details of it?
Of course I do, I have family in Ukraine. I'd love to know how 2014 infringed on Russia's sovereignty, though, since that's the only way I could see it remotely justifying what Russia is doing today.
Okay, then tell me what happened in 2014. You still haven't answered the question.
2014 is when Russia first invaded Ukraine.
I'd love to hear how you'll spin it to mean Russia was in anyway infringed against, and how it means Russia's invasions aren't unilateral.
Is that your actual answer? That's all you think that happened in 2014? I'm asking because it's pretty impossible to gauge wether you're being a smug idiot or just an idiot right now.
Getting an answer out of a lib really is like pulling teeth, you're completely incapable of good faith discussion. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? Why do you refuse to just engage in good faith with those that respond to you? Are you incapable of being a smugh shitheel?
You said Russia didn't unilaterally invade Ukraine, because of what happened in 2014. I poked fun at how ridiculous that was and now you refuse to explain what you meant. Now you're just projecting and insulting me instead of explaining what you mean and how Russia was threatened in any way that justifies Russia's actions.
I know what happened in 2014, again, I have family in Ukraine. Are you going to explain your reasoning or are you just going to get yourself off on how much smarter you are than me, and how great your argument/discussion skills are, without giving anything of substance?
I've so far said nothing about wether or not Russia invaded Ukraine. I've literally only asked you about what happened in 2014. So far you've failed to answer.
Yeah, like you've been doing all the way through. Answer the question.
Then tell me. Why is it so hard to just answer a question? What happened in 2014?
Quote where I've insulted you.
You're the one making claims, you tell me what you think happened that justifies what Russia's doing, or even provoked them in some way.
I meant the projection.
What claims have I made? Quote them to me please. I've literally only asked you to answer the question, WHICH YOU STILL HAVENT DONE. Why is it so difficult?
In response to someone saying Russia invaded unilaterally, you referenced what happened in 2014, as if that provoked or justified Russia's current actions. That is your argument, you should explain it. Unless you're just Just Asking Questions.
I'm open to actually discussing it with you if you'll actually explain what you mean and why you feel that way, because I've been following the situation for years and don't know how one would come to that conclusion.
I'm not the user that referenced it. Once again: I've literally only asked you to answer the question. Had I been the one to state the question initially, you still wouldn't be able to make that conclusion, it is a huge assumption that that would be the line of reasoning, angle of argument or anything else. It could just as easily have been a way to see where we disagree, create a common basis from which to have an argument, to help illustrate a point of larger context or something else entirely. It is common for a discussion to create a basis of shared understanding from which we can then diverge or argue.
No thanks. Its pretty clear you're not capable of pleasant or good faith discussion, instead choosing weird debate tactics, condescention and strawmanning me. I've literally only asked you to answer a question, and you haven't been able to fulfill this simple request. It's pretty clear any extended conversation would just be even worse.
Maybe when you're less of an antagonistic debatelord.
"They started it" doesn't really work for diplomacy sadly.
Also who broke the Minsk II treaty?
You have a very funny idea about the realities of war. By your logic most could never end. Wars are resolved through diplomacy or full collapse and loss. Your sociopathic ideas about what is "reasonable" devalues the lives and well-being of Ukrainians living through war.
This is liberal "moral victory" nonsense that no serious person believes.
Thank you for conceding my point and implicitly retracting the claim I replied to.
When in the history of ever did a nation willingly withdraw from its enemy before even holding peace talks?
Did the US withdraw from Mexico before they started hashing out Guadalupe Hidalgo?
Did Germany withdraw from Russia before negotiating Brest-Litovsk?
Even the 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' US negotiated with the Taliban before leaving Afghanistan.
It’s a deal, and withdrawal is one of the terms. You don’t do it before the deal has been made. That gives up all leverage.
And Ukraine has already demanded they get absolutely everything, including Crimea. If you want a deal to be everything you want and nothing you don’t, you need an unconditional surrender, not peace talks. Good luck getting Ukrainian tanks into Moscow.