5 ms·

>...Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. This

>...Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. This is an understandably myopic view. Especially now, as the whole charade of justification and "objectives" of russia's invasion in Ukraine is in full swing. Perhaps, remembering that in putin's view, Ukraine is not an independent state, its existence is a mistake, the land is a sphere of russia's influence... well, the madman outright wants it "back" into the "empire". Thus it has long been clear that no amount of pacifying or "non-irritating" is to alter such policy. Language, aspirations and affinities are simply pre-texts for the forceful grab. Fundamentally, we're dealing with a clash of mentalities. One adopting to modern day and the one still stuck in the "age of empires". To putin's russians, tank is a symbol of forceful conquest. So it's not going away. Perhaps, more images of the charred russian army tanks could break this perception... temporarily.

thriftwy 4y ago
> it has long been clear that no amount of pacifying or "non-irritating" is to alter such policy. This represents the total failure of diplomacy present in today's discourse. We no longer think diplomacy affects the outcome and we think that any compromises from our side is just "free stuff" for the other one. What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war? The ones that were missed by the lack of effort?
- zoomablemind 4y ago
  >...What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war? There're no more what ifs. The madman was amassing the troops on the border for months, dismissing any possibilities of preparing an invasion. Then invaded, and openly blackmailed the rest of the world with a nuclear strike, all spreaded by his chief "diplomat". Present day russia as state proved to be pathologically incapable of maintaining signed treaties. If anything, the diplomacy needed to rely on the effective sanctions. However, that's were the failure was. Since the 2014 the sanction pressure proved to be insignificant to alter russia's course. Did we get a second chance at it now?
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    Sanctions are not going to deter anyone from anything. Sanctions is anti-diplomacy. Why do you need troops if you're not going to amass those? Still does not mean that diplomacy can't be useful. The mental health argument is weird. Was Bush a madman when he invaded Iraq?
    - nradov 4y ago
      Diplomacy was tried and failed. The point of sanctions isn't deterrence. It's to weaken the Russian economy and slow down the rate at which they can manufacture more weapons.
- ogogmad 4y ago
  There were 8 years of diplomacy. There was maybe 1 year of intense diplomacy before the invasion on the 24th of February? Don't listen to Russian disinformation, it'll make you stupider.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    I don't remember any "intense diplomacy" other than more threats of sanctions, more public humiliation of Russia, no compromise on any question being discussed. In 8 years I remember Ukraine botching its obligations on Minsk agreements and Steinmeier formula. With such strength of diplomacy, no wonder it didn't work.
    - nradov 4y ago
      What sort of compromise would you suggest? How much territory should Ukraine cede to Russia this year? And how much more next year when Russia manufacturers some new fake complaint?
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        Maybe none. Is "NATO" a territory of Ukraine? Is "no limiting of Russian language usage" a territory of Ukraine? How about "not overthrowing legitimately elected president, twice"?
        nradov 4y ago
        So are you claiming that Russia should be allowed to veto internal Ukrainian political decisions, or prevent them from voluntarily joining other alliances? Wouldn't it be better to just keep killing Russian soldiers until they run out and retreat?
        thriftwy 4y ago
        Well they are trying that now. It looks like the tide of war is not on their side at the moment. And yeah, you should've got by now that the position of your neihbours is the most important factor in the policy of most, if not all, countries.

thriftwy 4y ago

> it has long been clear that no amount of pacifying or "non-irritating" is to alter such policy. This represents the total failure of diplomacy present in today's discourse. We no longer think diplomacy affects the outcome and we think that any compromises from our side is just "free stuff" for the other one. What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war? The ones that were missed by the lack of effort?

zoomablemind 4y ago
>...What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war? There're no more what ifs. The madman was amassing the troops on the border for months, dismissing any possibilities of preparing an invasion. Then invaded, and openly blackmailed the rest of the world with a nuclear strike, all spreaded by his chief "diplomat". Present day russia as state proved to be pathologically incapable of maintaining signed treaties. If anything, the diplomacy needed to rely on the effective sanctions. However, that's were the failure was. Since the 2014 the sanction pressure proved to be insignificant to alter russia's course. Did we get a second chance at it now?
- thriftwy 4y ago
  Sanctions are not going to deter anyone from anything. Sanctions is anti-diplomacy. Why do you need troops if you're not going to amass those? Still does not mean that diplomacy can't be useful. The mental health argument is weird. Was Bush a madman when he invaded Iraq?
  - nradov 4y ago
    Diplomacy was tried and failed. The point of sanctions isn't deterrence. It's to weaken the Russian economy and slow down the rate at which they can manufacture more weapons.
ogogmad 4y ago
There were 8 years of diplomacy. There was maybe 1 year of intense diplomacy before the invasion on the 24th of February? Don't listen to Russian disinformation, it'll make you stupider.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  I don't remember any "intense diplomacy" other than more threats of sanctions, more public humiliation of Russia, no compromise on any question being discussed. In 8 years I remember Ukraine botching its obligations on Minsk agreements and Steinmeier formula. With such strength of diplomacy, no wonder it didn't work.
  - nradov 4y ago
    What sort of compromise would you suggest? How much territory should Ukraine cede to Russia this year? And how much more next year when Russia manufacturers some new fake complaint?
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      Maybe none. Is "NATO" a territory of Ukraine? Is "no limiting of Russian language usage" a territory of Ukraine? How about "not overthrowing legitimately elected president, twice"?
      - nradov 4y ago
        So are you claiming that Russia should be allowed to veto internal Ukrainian political decisions, or prevent them from voluntarily joining other alliances? Wouldn't it be better to just keep killing Russian soldiers until they run out and retreat?
        thriftwy 4y ago
        Well they are trying that now. It looks like the tide of war is not on their side at the moment. And yeah, you should've got by now that the position of your neihbours is the most important factor in the policy of most, if not all, countries.