this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
66 points (75.8% liked)
World News
31456 readers
1479 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Defending your home is good.
The best way to defend your home is to stop the bombs from falling on it. Unless you're not talking about people's homes, families, and friends, but rather talking about some arbitrary line in the sand that people should be sent to die for.
Then why oh why aren’t you applying your reasoning to Russia? They started the whole conflict out of a desire to expand their arbitrary lines in the sand to include ukrainian territory.
If it’s all just pointless bloodshed over lines on a map, why isn’t Russia staying home? All they have to do to stop the deaths is go back.
We're talking about the fastest ways to stop bloodshed, not Russia. Do you think that ending the war is bad?
Well fastest way is for Russia to say "We're done, here's your territory back."
Would be equally fast if ukraine said "We're done, keep the territory"
Edit: objectively true statement downvoted for being inconvenient to the reader
Russia being the aggressor State that didn't respect its prior engagements (Budapest memorandum), letting them keep the territory they unlawfully took from Ukraine is a ridiculous suggestion, would open the door to the same thing happening again at a later date and would require way more negotiations than just respecting the borders as agreed upon in the 90s.
Since you are talking about unhonored agreements, you should know that if Ukraine followed the minsk agreement, there would not be any war right now. And no, I am not suggesting anything. I am just pointing out how the previous argument was fucking stupid. But since you are asking for a suggestion, I suggest Ukraine and Russia meet for peace talks mediated by a neutral country, and let both countries talk about their grievances and find a compromise. This is a historically proven method of solving conflicts. And since Ukraine is such a sovereign country, they should decide for themselves what to do, instead of letting the UK arbitrarily revert actions on a whim.
So your argument against mine is that Ukraine didn't respect an agreement that wouldn't have been necessary if Russia had respected an agreement signed 20 years prior? Really?
Russian spokesman: Recognizing the Donbas republics would not be compatible with Minsk agreement.
Putin: I recognize the Donbas republics and the agreement no longer exists.
You: Ukraine is at fault.
The propaganda worked well with you I see 👍
Off to the block list with all the tankies you go!
What a convoluted mess you have written, and what about that habit of yours of putting things in other people's mouths? But let me address the raised issues: Ukraine did sign the Minsk agreements, just like Russia signed the Budapest memorandum, which were not conflicting proposals. It doesn't matter which one was signed first, but rather which one is broken first, and by which party. Russia only entered the territory of Ukraine officially in 2022, whereas the Minsk agreements have been proposed and revised since 2014 with no results, and it was confirmed that Ukraine never had intentions to fulfill any of its obligations and were using it as a cover to militarize the country further. You talk about propaganda, but it's precisely propaganda that makes you so quick to dismiss all the undesirable information and shut down conversation that is not going your way. I'm afraid your "tankie" block list will continue to be expanded.
No, it wouldn't. That would lead to more and worse violence as Russia continues it genocide.