• BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you aware there not one but two previous attempts at negotiations that Ukraine purposedly sabotaged on their own? Are you even aware Merkel literaly admitted the Minsk agreements were merely attempts to buy time and prepare Ukraine for war.

      You can read the terms here

      All the more remarkable is her admission that the Minsk agreement served to buy time for Ukraine’s rearmament. “It was clear to all of us that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem had not been solved, but that is precisely what gave Ukraine valuable time,” Merkel told Die Zeit.

      Previously, the Minsk agreement, which Merkel signed together with then-French President François Hollande, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2014, had been portrayed as an effort towards peace that the Russian president had allegedly later thwarted.

      Now, Merkel confirms that NATO wanted war from the start but needed time to prepare militarily—an assessment WSWS has long held.

      Russia negotiated in good faith while NATO never had any intention of honoring negotiation terms agreed by Ukraine.

      Yes quite literaly if NATO stayed the fuck out of Ukraine there wouldn't be any war, literaly once again, they purposedly broke the agreements which were meant to prevent war and de-escalate.

      Minsk 1 was in 2014. Then there was a second Minsk agreement in 2015.

      Please for the love of god don't parachute into this war as if history began in February 2022 I beg you.

      • Mr. Satan@monyet.cc
        ·
        1 year ago

        All Russian negotiations rely on the agreement for Ukrane to give up a part of invaded lands. That is not going to happen, especially after Crimea in 2014. Russia has no claim to the lands and any negotiations that require them are a joke.

        If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it's all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and "compromise" won't do it.

        Of course NATO will not directly engage in this war (as sad as it is), that would result in WWIII. It is convieniet for NATO nations that the conflict is in Ukrane, but that does not change the fact Ukrane needs and is getting support indirectly, because NATO has an interest in Ukrane winning.

        Comparing that to China's "priority" for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.

        • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          Comparing that to China’s “priority” for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.

          Okay, that's a fair point.

          If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it’s all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and “compromise” won’t do it.

          But what evidence do you have to support this? We have a short and long term history to look at showing NATO going back on their promises, lying, sowing chaos. Russia by comparison has been reliable. Isn't the fair thing then to try to make the compromise survive as long as possible? Because the alternative to compromise is people dying. Even if it's none of your friends, surely you don't want Russians dying either, right?

        • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          All Russian negotiations rely on the agreement for Ukrane to give up a part of invaded lands. That is not going to happen, especially after Crimea in 2014. Russia has no claim to the lands and any negotiations that require them are a joke.

          What are you even talking about? Seriously what part of terms agreed by Ukraine you didn't understand? Please for the love of god actualy read about the stuff you're commenting before replying, thank you.

      • el_bhm@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah yes. The famous Russian good faith and NATO forcing their hand into genocides.

        • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          From where any logical and sane person is sitting, only one side commited a historical blunder of actualy admitting to the media that the Donbas war was a "frozen conflict" when in reality there were already peace agreements between both sides.

          Go complain to Merkel for making you look bad. You don't have to believe in Russian good faith if you don't want to, all that is necessary is to admit the actual reality of what happened and what was admitted by the west already.

            • taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              1 year ago

              Say, can you tell me why Russia "invaded" Ukraine and not any of its other much weaker neighbors? I bet you think the conflict started in 2022

              • el_bhm@lemm.ee
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Of course I dont!

                Georgia

                Chechinia

                Afghanistan

                Czechoslovakian Republic got pacified

                China

                Armenia

                Tatarstan

                Lithuania

                Finland

                List goes on

                In last 120 years Russia attacked almost every neighbour.

                Poland fought with Russia 3 times in the last 120 years.

                Will Russia stop at Ukraine?

                • m532@lemmygrad.ml
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Finland was nazi axis. You defend nazis.

                  Edit: haha of course you have no clue why they attacked ukraine. No geopolitical knowledge at all.

                • taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I'm saying why did they attack Ukraine last year (stay on topic please) and not any of its weaker neighbors, which would have been a lot easier

                  • el_bhm@lemm.ee
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No. The topic is Russia is a warmonger attacking every single neighbour throughout history.

                    Stay on topic.

                  • el_bhm@lemm.ee
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Pact Ribbentrop Molotov.

                    Lets stay on topic of Russia invading every single neighboring country throughout history.

    • booty [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sending guns to Ukraine to keep this awful war going longer doesn't help anyone defend anyone.

      • Mr. Satan@monyet.cc
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but also yes. It does prolong the war, but it also helps to save civilians and push back against an aggressor.

        • notceps [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          How does it help? Explain to me how supporting Ukraine a country that at this point now just forcibly conscripts anyone helps civilians. Have you talked to any Ukrainian women that had to flee from this conflict and that they haven't hear anything about their husbands brothers and fathers? Were those people not civilians? Or are Ukrainian lives just not a thing? I guess it helps if Ukraine has less and less actual civilians because more and more have to get drafted into the army so some assholes can send another thousand poor people to walk across a minefield to get blown up after all if they are in the army they are no longer civilians.

          You know who it does help? US military contractors. Ukraine has received 76.8bn USD in 2022 from the USA this isn't counting various loans that I'm sure aren't going to be used against Ukraine to force them to privatize everything and enforce austerity policies. EU countries sent double that 140bn USD

          This is in one year from one country, we could end world hunger with a yearly investment of 23bn USD to 40bn USD, this would actually undeniably help save civilians, in fact it would save at least three times as much because the population of ukraine is something under 50mil while the population currently suffering from severe hunger is 150mil.

          The only reason why you've been told that this saves civilians and not you know anything else is because again selling weapons is big business and the only way governments can spend money now I guess, so yes lets save those civilians by forcing them at gunpoint to go walk into a minefield so more and more and more and more and more blood can be fed into this another horrifiyng war to fight over imaginary lines because USA liberty guns or whatever wants their stock to go up.

          If you truly believe in this shit, I think this is more of an online cheerleading thing for you, you should join up and fight the aggressor and prevent putin from doing a genocide or whatever.

          • el_bhm@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, and remember that Russia will absolutely not invade another country.

            • m532@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              1 year ago

              Projection. Always Projection. The western mouthfrothers can only imagine western crimes and then they project that onto nonwesterners. Pathetic losers.

              • el_bhm@lemm.ee
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Georgia

                Armenia

                Finland

                Lithuania

                Chechnia

                Afghanistan

                Ukraine

                China

                Poland 3 times in less than 25 years.

                Thats last 120 years. So what projection?

                • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Firstly you are conflating Russia and the USSR. Secondly, just saying names of countries without context amounts to nothing more than a gish gallop. But let's go through point by point:

                  Georgia

                  Even a EU commission tasked with investigating the 2008 conflict admitted it was started by Georgia and its US puppet government who attacked and started shelling South Ossetia.

                  Armenia

                  What? Wtf are you even talking about? Russia has consistently protected Armenia and put its own peacekeepers' lives on the line to aid the Armenian people. Are you confusing Russia with Azerbaijan/Turkey?

                  Finland

                  Nazi ally who went on to participate in the Siege of Leningrad that killed over a million people. Encouraged by the British to reject any and all negotiations with the Soviets that could have averted the Winter War.

                  Lithuania

                  Again: what? Are you just pulling random country names out of your ass?

                  Chechnia

                  Not a country. Part of Russia. Russia had every right to subdue US backed terrorist separatists.

                  Afghanistan

                  The USSR was explicitly asked by the government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, a Soviet ally and the legitimate government of Afghanistan at the time, to intervene and help them fight the US backed islamist terrorist insurgency.

                  Ukraine

                  Russia intervened in an ongoing civil war that had been raging for eight years following a fascist, US backed coup that ousted the democratically elected president. This after every attempt at negotiating a diplomatic solution was rejected by the Kiev regime and its US masters.

                  Russia acted according to international law and accepted the defensive request of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics which were and still are under attack by Kiev regime forces.

                  China

                  Wtf are kind of drugs are you on? We're talking about real history here not alternate reality fantasies.

                  Poland 3 times

                  Poland invaded the territories of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania right after WWI while the newly established Soviet Republics were still embroiled in the Russian civil war against the Whites and expeditionary forces of a dozen imperialist nations who invaded Russia to restore the Tsar's tyranny.

                  The Soviet forces fought back but due to being stretched thin Poland managed to steal parts of Ukraine and Belarus in violation of the borders set for Poland after WWI.

                  When the Nazis invaded Poland and the Polish government fled into exile the Polish state ceased to exist. The USSR stepped in to protect the territories of "Eastern Poland" aka the stolen Ukrainian and Byelorussian lands from also being overrun by Nazis.

                  In doing this they saved millions of people and provided safe haven for countless Jews who would undoubtedly have faced extermination otherwise. The Soviets didn't even fight against Polish forces and no one in the international community at the time recognized this as an invasion.

                  As for a third time, do you mean to say that the Red Army's liberation of Poland from Nazi occupation was a "Russian invasion"? Are you pro-Nazi?

          • Mr. Satan@monyet.cc
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh I don't know, maybe because the same exact thing happened with Crimea. All out war didn't start, but peope died, homes were destroyed and Russia became a little bigger.

            • SexMachineStalin [comrade/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I'm gonna ask again: Why the fuck was Obomba and his shriveled sentient fleshlight Joe Bellend in Ukraine?

              Spoiler: Crimea took place after the fact.

      • el_bhm@lemm.ee
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Russia will of course stop out of goodness of their little hearts.

        They will not follow up to Poland and Baltics.

        • booty [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ukraine either loses, or they keep fighting and a whole lot more people die and then they lose. Which is better?

            • booty [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              That clearly isn't happening, so Ukrainians have two choices, which is better?

                • Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Gone with the Minsk agreements, which Merkel admitted was just to buy time to arm Ukraine

                  Russia offered multiple chances for peace, but NATO engaged in bad faith.

                  Surely you’ve heard of this saying: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Why would Russia let themselves get fooled a third time? That’s just stupidity.

    • el_bhm@lemm.ee
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. The exact point of this ampliganda.

      You can pull up crazy numbers China are pushing for building their Navy and contrast it with EU spending on infrastructure and post-COVID investments.