NATO aid and their not allowing Ukraine to negotiate peace is what is prolonging this war. We aren't arguing for all of Ukraine to become Russian territory, which hasn't been the position of the Russian Federation either.
We would like a negotiated peace that alllows the Donbas republics to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation as they've voted to do, and a promise for Ukraine to not become part of NATO. That senario is not the alternative you're talking about, or what you're implying we support.
We act as if the land wasnt invaded. The quickest way to achieve peace is for Putin yo withdraw. If the Ukrainians push into Russia after a withdraw, then we are having a different conversation.
You cant claim to believe in peace while in another territory.
No, if he didn't he would have been couped and the invasion launched anyway. Russia is a dictatorship of capital. Putin answers to the national bourgeoisie of Russia.
Also hypotheticals like that aren't really relevant to discussing actual exit strategies. Unless you've found a way to hop realities.
Then they deserve defeat at the hands of Ukraine. If they want to go into a war on their own volition, then they will have to face to consequences. If that requires NATO might, then so be it. Peace was always an option.
Okay, but it doesn't seem Ukraine is winning, even with NATO supporting them. So, that means a settlement is probably the best option to save lives all around.
I disagree. The fact that Russia (a supposed world super power) is still there means Ukraine is winning. Russia can't beat little ol' Ukraine in a war. I'd say they are in a better position than we think.
No, it means its getting increasingly bloody as more and more Russians and Ukrainians get thrown in the meat grinder without a path to victory for Ukraine. That isn't winning.
You understand that "they should behave like they should behave" isnt very useful in understanding politics and developing personally actionable solutions, right?
Your way of conceptializing this is so childlike as to be useless.
I want the war in Ukraine to end. I want them to negotiate the best and most obvious solution to this conflict for the parties involved. I want the war to end because then people will not be getting killed.
You want NATO to keep supporting Ukraine, to keep Ukraine away from negotiating. You want this, because... i don't know why.
I'm saying the Ukrainians should not be expected to negotiate, given that it is their land being invaded. If Putin doesn't like that, he can pound sand and leave.
If someone invades your house, you wouldn't just given them a room and bath to have them clam down.
There was an ethnic cleansing attempt going on prior to the Russuan invasion. The Azov battalion was shelling ethnic Russians (who make up the majority of people in the Dnbas and Eastern Ukraine)in the Donbas for the last 8 years.
If Putin doesn't like that, he can pound sand and leave.
Or he can keep grinding Ukrainians that are poisoning their own soil with mines, cluster ammo and depleted uranium because I assure you Ukraine isn't winning this and even their NATO backers are announcing it now that the "spring counter-offensive" has failed.
do you sincerely think Ukraine will be like "it's all good you were a good sport we're gonna end the match here, everyone go home" if Russia suddenly decided to up and leave.
Even if Russia were to withdraw to pre-war borders, Ukraine would keep fighting because they insist on taking Crimea which is a large majority Russians who want to be part of Russia.
Crimea has never truly been Ukrainian. It was internally transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s, but its population was Russian then and stayed Russian the whole time since. But Ukraine insists on having it back.
And if they did somehow get it back, they would start ethnically cleansing it of Russians. I hope you understand how that’s a bad thing.
Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia.
The war would end, a whole lot of people would stop getting killed, and it would open a sliver of space to organize on class lines instead of nationalist ones.
As it is, it is basically illegal to be a communist or an anarchist in Ukraine, and the country is under martial law with NATO-armed and trained fascist brigades doling out summary justice. Could it get worse? Why should the left advocate for people to die on the hill of a country which arrests communists, dismantles labor unions, and liquidates public infrastructure on internet auctions for foreign investors?
If you take the most vulgar Anarchist approach, all states are bad, full stop. Political practice doesn't even operate on that paradigm. You struggle to undermine oppressive hierarchical systems that you come in direct contact with through direct action. If you take the vulgar Leninist approach, the Proletariat should struggle for the overthrow of their Bourgeoisie (this would include the proletariat of Ukraine and Russia respectively, as well as the proletariat of Western countries which see this conflict only as a means to strengthen their military alliances and diplomatic positions). Of course, the situation is too nuanced to apply such a vulgar approach, but that should be the STARTING POINT for anybody who considers themselves anti-capitalists. You should be able to justify any deviation from those bedrock positions.
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.
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?
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 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.
Putin has started multiple times that he does not consider Ukraine a legitimate country. If he does not think they should exist, where would the other portion of it go?
Im no fan of US imperialism, but you all conveniently leave out the alternative to NATO aid in Ukraine right now.
Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia.
If you think that end result is OK, then I don't know what to tell you.
As far as Im concerned, Putins expansion is really helping NATOs by giving them a justification to exist.
How does communism inform your perspective?
NATO aid and their not allowing Ukraine to negotiate peace is what is prolonging this war. We aren't arguing for all of Ukraine to become Russian territory, which hasn't been the position of the Russian Federation either.
We would like a negotiated peace that alllows the Donbas republics to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation as they've voted to do, and a promise for Ukraine to not become part of NATO. That senario is not the alternative you're talking about, or what you're implying we support.
We act as if the land wasnt invaded. The quickest way to achieve peace is for Putin yo withdraw. If the Ukrainians push into Russia after a withdraw, then we are having a different conversation.
You cant claim to believe in peace while in another territory.
And then get couped and have the war continue under the leadership of a right wing hardliner
Please look up critiques of great man theory as it seems relevant to your line of thinking on this matter.
So what you are saying is Putin messed up and is in too deep now, no? Seems like the easiest solution would have been to not invade UkrIne
No, if he didn't he would have been couped and the invasion launched anyway. Russia is a dictatorship of capital. Putin answers to the national bourgeoisie of Russia.
Also hypotheticals like that aren't really relevant to discussing actual exit strategies. Unless you've found a way to hop realities.
Then they deserve defeat at the hands of Ukraine. If they want to go into a war on their own volition, then they will have to face to consequences. If that requires NATO might, then so be it. Peace was always an option.
Okay, but it doesn't seem Ukraine is winning, even with NATO supporting them. So, that means a settlement is probably the best option to save lives all around.
I disagree. The fact that Russia (a supposed world super power) is still there means Ukraine is winning. Russia can't beat little ol' Ukraine in a war. I'd say they are in a better position than we think.
Lol.
No, it means its getting increasingly bloody as more and more Russians and Ukrainians get thrown in the meat grinder without a path to victory for Ukraine. That isn't winning.
Russia is making it bloody, correct. They should leave.
And Biden should give everyone a pony.
You understand that "they should behave like they should behave" isnt very useful in understanding politics and developing personally actionable solutions, right?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don't even know what this means because it has no grounding in reality.
They can't negotiate peace because they are in a war? How is it possible to resolve this conflict in any realistic way if thats the criteria?
Ideally by standing down. Again, they arent in their own nation.
Lets change perspectives here. Lets go back in time to the British colonialist and the native Americans. Are the natives supposed to just do nothing?
The victims ought not be expected to let the perpetrators continue to harm them
Your way of conceptializing this is so childlike as to be useless.
I want the war in Ukraine to end. I want them to negotiate the best and most obvious solution to this conflict for the parties involved. I want the war to end because then people will not be getting killed.
You want NATO to keep supporting Ukraine, to keep Ukraine away from negotiating. You want this, because... i don't know why.
I'm saying the Ukrainians should not be expected to negotiate, given that it is their land being invaded. If Putin doesn't like that, he can pound sand and leave.
If someone invades your house, you wouldn't just given them a room and bath to have them clam down.
So in your mind they should not negotiate and fight to the last Ukrainian because your conception of geopolitics is a home invasion?
I'm saying Ukraine should take their aid and push Russia back, as they are doing quite well. Russia isn't doing too hot there right now.
deleted by creator
If there was an ethnic cleansing attempt of any kind, I would promote the greatest of sanctions against them. I dislike bullies.
This is an example of you justifying Russia's actions.
deleted by creator
There was an ethnic cleansing attempt going on prior to the Russuan invasion. The Azov battalion was shelling ethnic Russians (who make up the majority of people in the Dnbas and Eastern Ukraine)in the Donbas for the last 8 years.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Or he can keep grinding Ukrainians that are poisoning their own soil with mines, cluster ammo and depleted uranium because I assure you Ukraine isn't winning this and even their NATO backers are announcing it now that the "spring counter-offensive" has failed.
deleted by creator
do you sincerely think Ukraine will be like "it's all good you were a good sport we're gonna end the match here, everyone go home" if Russia suddenly decided to up and leave.
Even if Russia were to withdraw to pre-war borders, Ukraine would keep fighting because they insist on taking Crimea which is a large majority Russians who want to be part of Russia.
Crimea has never truly been Ukrainian. It was internally transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s, but its population was Russian then and stayed Russian the whole time since. But Ukraine insists on having it back.
And if they did somehow get it back, they would start ethnically cleansing it of Russians. I hope you understand how that’s a bad thing.
The war would end, a whole lot of people would stop getting killed, and it would open a sliver of space to organize on class lines instead of nationalist ones.
As it is, it is basically illegal to be a communist or an anarchist in Ukraine, and the country is under martial law with NATO-armed and trained fascist brigades doling out summary justice. Could it get worse? Why should the left advocate for people to die on the hill of a country which arrests communists, dismantles labor unions, and liquidates public infrastructure on internet auctions for foreign investors?
If you take the most vulgar Anarchist approach, all states are bad, full stop. Political practice doesn't even operate on that paradigm. You struggle to undermine oppressive hierarchical systems that you come in direct contact with through direct action. If you take the vulgar Leninist approach, the Proletariat should struggle for the overthrow of their Bourgeoisie (this would include the proletariat of Ukraine and Russia respectively, as well as the proletariat of Western countries which see this conflict only as a means to strengthen their military alliances and diplomatic positions). Of course, the situation is too nuanced to apply such a vulgar approach, but that should be the STARTING POINT for anybody who considers themselves anti-capitalists. You should be able to justify any deviation from those bedrock positions.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
A war that Russia unilaterally started. They are not reliable negotiators.
So no peace talks during war time.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, 2014, that was when Ukraine invaded Russia, right?
deleted by creator
For it to justify Russia invading Ukraine, it must have been something like Ukraine infringing on Russia's sovereignty, right?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Ukraine offered neutrality which was what Russia wanted and Russia rejected it. Then Ukraine accepted aid.
deleted by creator
No it wouldn’t. At most they would take the southern half, Novorossiya. The rest they just want a guarantee won’t align with the West.
Putin has started multiple times that he does not consider Ukraine a legitimate country. If he does not think they should exist, where would the other portion of it go?
You have that backwards and are welcome to learn about the context behind the conflict, just ask
Ah, I think I've found the issue. Here at Hexbear we only support Pyrimidine Russia. We hate fuckin' cytosine, don't we folks?