• ElHexo [comrade/them]
    ·
    11 months ago

    Serious question, would you save 300,000 Ukrainian lives if it meant giving up 100 square kilometres of land to Russia?

      • ElHexo [comrade/them]
        ·
        11 months ago

        If they didn't, then you'd still have 300,000 bodies to throw at them - not to mention openly breaking treaties isn't a good look internationally - particularly if you're trying to build a counter bloc or at least ensure neutrality

        • SigloPseudoMundo@lemmy.ml
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ukraine shoulda kept those nukes, those are much better at protecting neutrality when you share a border with Russia. Educate yourself about the Budapest memorandum and maybe you'll realize your hypocrisy. Why the sam hell do you think would Russia care about breaking internal law?

          • ElHexo [comrade/them]
            ·
            11 months ago

            Ukraine didn't have the ability to use them, except to take the radioactive material and put them into conventional weapons - which they could do anyway because of their nuclear industry.

              • ElHexo [comrade/them]
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yes, of course.

                Belarus would argue that the US broke their memorandum first with sanctions IIRC, Russia would argue that the 2014 revolution in Ukraine was in part due to US political interference, the US would argue that Russia broke it in Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine in 2022.

    • Teraflip@lemm.ee
      ·
      11 months ago

      Of course not! It's not Ukraine's fault that the Russian Federation invaded and demanded they give up land.