Russia has a much longer history of violating agreements on Ukrainian borders. Why would this time be different?
Oh, please. The West's history of breaking agreements goes back way further. Merkel, Poroshenko, and others actively boasted about how the Minsk Agreements were designed to buy Ukraine time to re-arm, and weren't serious attempts at peace. There's something like two centuries of Western countries breaking promises made to everybody and everyone. Russia has no reason to negotiate with the West anymore because they are obviously completely unwilling to keep their promises.
Ukraine is the one making peace impossible. They are the ones that demand total withdrawal of Russia before the peace negotiations can even begin. That is absurd. You aren't stupid, so you also know that's absurd. Everybody who wasn't born yesterday knows that this will never happen, because then Russia will give up its leverage that cost it thousands of lives to obtain. A demand for peace with terms that are hilariously absurd is, effectively, a demand for war.
The absolute minimum that Ukraine must do is give up its claims over Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, and never join NATO. This is the bedrock, the non-negotiable foundation. From this point on, it's a give-and-take. Russia may give up any objections to Ukraine joining the EU, or purging some of its Nazi elements. We shall see. Ukraine's position gets worse and worse the more of its military is degraded as it loses leverage, so perhaps the concept of a "peace negotiation" might be a pipe dream as there will be nothing left of the Ukrainian government with which to negotiate peace, or Russia will simply be dictating terms. If Ukraine made peace earlier, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive, they would have more leverage, and the country would be in a better position for the future.
Alas, according to the West and western liberals, they must all die, to the last Ukrainian, for some abstract notion of "sticking it to the man in the Kremlin!" or "freedom and democracy" or "anti-authoritarianism". Truly showing us communists who cares about Ukrainian lives.
do you have a compilation of sources regarding these treaties? it's a beast to search for as NATO justifications dominate the search results and I don't want to reply with disinfo.
The very first term was Minsk 1 then Minsk 2, they could've walked away with giving more autonomy to those two oblasts but they didn't. Russia invades and is close to their capital, this proposal would've been 'No NATO, and Russia takes Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts from them. Since then Russia decided to add 2 more.
I know that you guys love fallacies so here's one it's called the sunk-cost fallacy.
If this war is following the same trajectory then Russia will add two more oblasts to their new demands, and so on and so on. Ukraine is not winning, and since they are entirely dependant on foreign help they will only grow weaker and weaker. Ukraine should've just from a purely self preservation point of view accepted russian terms. The people should demand that the government accept those terms because all that is currently happening is that more people get thrown into a meatgrinder but I guess you know sanctity of nations and all that.
No you dumb clown, the point is having a display tag declaring what gender you are prevents you from being accidentally misgendered because otherwise you are an anonymous account on the net
I literally just said that Ukraine doesn't have to surrender to all Russian terms because they still have leverage. They had more leverage last autumn and could have negotiated for still controlling Kherson and Zaporozhye, but then decided to keep going. They will have less and less leverage as time goes by, until at the end of the war when they will have to surrender to all Russian terms. This insistence on Ukraine never surrendering, never negotiating bEcAuSe RuSsIa ShOuLd ReTrEaT fIrSt, as if that's how any war in human history has ever worked, is what is damaging Ukraine more.
Maybe they shouldn't be losing the fucking war then? Maybe they and their NATO handlers, with the absolute mountain of steel that they're piping into Ukraine, shouldn't have ran soldiers and equipments into minefields for two months with almost literally no gain whatsoever? I don't know what to say to you, really. They decided to stay in the war in autumn at the apex of their military gains in Kharkiv and Kherson and so Russia built up defenses because the war was continuing instead of ending, as they were obviously going to do because they also want to win the war. Ukraine was the ones who decided, with the West's urging, to ditch the peace deal that they were writing up with Russia in April 2022. They decided to keep shelling the Donbass instead of allowing them more autonomy. They decided to overthrow the government and set fire to pro-Russians inside buildings in 2014, with America's help, to form an explicitly anti-Russian, fascist regime instead of anything constructive. This isn't a mere situation of an imperialist metropole assaulting its colonial possession for being too uppity, Russia tried repeatedly to solve the conflict diplomatically in such a way that this war didn't have to happen.
If Ukraine miraculously breaks through to the Sea of Azov (as more and more US officials are saying they can't) then maybe the foundations of the negotiations can change. Will they make peace then? Almost certainly not, just like last autumn. And then Russia will continue building defences and sending men in. And Ukraine will continue to bleed men, use up ammo, and ruin equipment until one of those things runs out. And NATO itself is saying that they're running out of artillery shells and ammo to send over, and can't rebuild the factories for years. Russia kept those industries instead of shipping their tank factories off to China (also a generally pro-Russian country, by the way!), like every other western country, those devious anti-free market fuckers! It doesn't take a PhD in military theory to draw two trend lines.
What does the West have to offer Russia to persuade it to give up its hard-fought for oblasts in Ukraine? More importantly, can Russia trust the West to not renege on that promise as soon as they withdraw their equipment? If they undo the sanctions, for example, what's stopping them from just putting them back on Russia as soon as the last tank has rolled back over the border? Mutual trust? Because, again, Western politicians have actively boasted, in the western media, to western interviewers, for a western audience, that the Minsk agreements were never serious, and that they were arming Ukraine for an ultimate conflict while also saying that, oh yes, we should have peace in the Donbass. That's an incredible breach of trust to just admit to, and it makes total sense why Putin might feel a little hesitant to trust any Western deal or promise made ever again.
Oh, please. The West's history of breaking agreements goes back way further. Merkel, Poroshenko, and others actively boasted about how the Minsk Agreements were designed to buy Ukraine time to re-arm, and weren't serious attempts at peace. There's something like two centuries of Western countries breaking promises made to everybody and everyone. Russia has no reason to negotiate with the West anymore because they are obviously completely unwilling to keep their promises.
Ukraine is the one making peace impossible. They are the ones that demand total withdrawal of Russia before the peace negotiations can even begin. That is absurd. You aren't stupid, so you also know that's absurd. Everybody who wasn't born yesterday knows that this will never happen, because then Russia will give up its leverage that cost it thousands of lives to obtain. A demand for peace with terms that are hilariously absurd is, effectively, a demand for war.
The absolute minimum that Ukraine must do is give up its claims over Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, and never join NATO. This is the bedrock, the non-negotiable foundation. From this point on, it's a give-and-take. Russia may give up any objections to Ukraine joining the EU, or purging some of its Nazi elements. We shall see. Ukraine's position gets worse and worse the more of its military is degraded as it loses leverage, so perhaps the concept of a "peace negotiation" might be a pipe dream as there will be nothing left of the Ukrainian government with which to negotiate peace, or Russia will simply be dictating terms. If Ukraine made peace earlier, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive, they would have more leverage, and the country would be in a better position for the future.
Alas, according to the West and western liberals, they must all die, to the last Ukrainian, for some abstract notion of "sticking it to the man in the Kremlin!" or "freedom and democracy" or "anti-authoritarianism". Truly showing us communists who cares about Ukrainian lives.
do you have a compilation of sources regarding these treaties? it's a beast to search for as NATO justifications dominate the search results and I don't want to reply with disinfo.
So, the negotiation you think Ukraine should enter in to is a surrender to all Russian terms?
The very first term was Minsk 1 then Minsk 2, they could've walked away with giving more autonomy to those two oblasts but they didn't. Russia invades and is close to their capital, this proposal would've been 'No NATO, and Russia takes Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts from them. Since then Russia decided to add 2 more.
I know that you guys love fallacies so here's one it's called the sunk-cost fallacy.
If this war is following the same trajectory then Russia will add two more oblasts to their new demands, and so on and so on. Ukraine is not winning, and since they are entirely dependant on foreign help they will only grow weaker and weaker. Ukraine should've just from a purely self preservation point of view accepted russian terms. The people should demand that the government accept those terms because all that is currently happening is that more people get thrown into a meatgrinder but I guess you know sanctity of nations and all that.
Removed by mod
You know what would solve this?
Making a hexbear account and selecting your pronouns so nobody can make that mistake anymore.
Removed by mod
No you dumb clown, the point is having a display tag declaring what gender you are prevents you from being accidentally misgendered because otherwise you are an anonymous account on the net
Removed by mod
Reporter: @uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Reason: misgendering and defense of misgendering
I literally just said that Ukraine doesn't have to surrender to all Russian terms because they still have leverage. They had more leverage last autumn and could have negotiated for still controlling Kherson and Zaporozhye, but then decided to keep going. They will have less and less leverage as time goes by, until at the end of the war when they will have to surrender to all Russian terms. This insistence on Ukraine never surrendering, never negotiating bEcAuSe RuSsIa ShOuLd ReTrEaT fIrSt, as if that's how any war in human history has ever worked, is what is damaging Ukraine more.
Removed by mod
Maybe they shouldn't be losing the fucking war then? Maybe they and their NATO handlers, with the absolute mountain of steel that they're piping into Ukraine, shouldn't have ran soldiers and equipments into minefields for two months with almost literally no gain whatsoever? I don't know what to say to you, really. They decided to stay in the war in autumn at the apex of their military gains in Kharkiv and Kherson and so Russia built up defenses because the war was continuing instead of ending, as they were obviously going to do because they also want to win the war. Ukraine was the ones who decided, with the West's urging, to ditch the peace deal that they were writing up with Russia in April 2022. They decided to keep shelling the Donbass instead of allowing them more autonomy. They decided to overthrow the government and set fire to pro-Russians inside buildings in 2014, with America's help, to form an explicitly anti-Russian, fascist regime instead of anything constructive. This isn't a mere situation of an imperialist metropole assaulting its colonial possession for being too uppity, Russia tried repeatedly to solve the conflict diplomatically in such a way that this war didn't have to happen.
If Ukraine miraculously breaks through to the Sea of Azov (as more and more US officials are saying they can't) then maybe the foundations of the negotiations can change. Will they make peace then? Almost certainly not, just like last autumn. And then Russia will continue building defences and sending men in. And Ukraine will continue to bleed men, use up ammo, and ruin equipment until one of those things runs out. And NATO itself is saying that they're running out of artillery shells and ammo to send over, and can't rebuild the factories for years. Russia kept those industries instead of shipping their tank factories off to China (also a generally pro-Russian country, by the way!), like every other western country, those devious anti-free market fuckers! It doesn't take a PhD in military theory to draw two trend lines.
What does the West have to offer Russia to persuade it to give up its hard-fought for oblasts in Ukraine? More importantly, can Russia trust the West to not renege on that promise as soon as they withdraw their equipment? If they undo the sanctions, for example, what's stopping them from just putting them back on Russia as soon as the last tank has rolled back over the border? Mutual trust? Because, again, Western politicians have actively boasted, in the western media, to western interviewers, for a western audience, that the Minsk agreements were never serious, and that they were arming Ukraine for an ultimate conflict while also saying that, oh yes, we should have peace in the Donbass. That's an incredible breach of trust to just admit to, and it makes total sense why Putin might feel a little hesitant to trust any Western deal or promise made ever again.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator