4 ms·

Loss? People changing countries is not loss of lives. Not even remotely so. The way out is very simple – the war can be stopped in the same way as in Afghanist

by NoPie 4y ago

Loss? People changing countries is not loss of lives. Not even remotely so. The way out is very simple – the war can be stopped in the same way as in Afghanistan.

thriftwy 4y ago
In Afghanistan, Soviet Union has left behind an allied secular government which would outlive the USSR by a few years. It was not like the American disengagement with people falling off planes. If people changing countries is not a big deal, why does not Ukraine admit the loss of territories it does not control since 2014? Until that happens, or Russia is defeated militarily, I see no grounds in expecting the war to stop. Ceasefires are possible but those won't last forever either.
- trasz 4y ago
  >If people changing countries is not a big deal, why does not Ukraine admit the loss of territories it does not control since 2014? Because we know what Russians do to civilians. Hundred thousand victims in Mariupol didn’t murder themselves. And yes, this means the war won’t end until at least couple of thousands young people from Moscow and Petersburg return home in pieces. Which means they need to get to the front first - for now the Russians fighting are ethnic minorities from Moscow’s colonies - and this means the sooner the draft starts the better. They are starting to enroll the homeless, which is a good sign.
- NoPie 4y ago
  Why don't Russia admit that if Russia had not started the war in 2014, countless people in those territories and beyond would not been killed? The only way to end this conflict peacefully is for Russia to retreat.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    The first part of your claim might as well be true. But the second one isn't. Russia has large number of Russian citizens there now, and is not leaving them behind. I don't see that happening. Ukraine does not want to leave their citizens behind either. So it seems that the conflict is not ending peacefully. Maybe it's not ending at all. Think Kashmir.
    - NoPie 4y ago
      Russia does not only leave their own people behind but actively send more to die. Of course, there will be some limit how far they can go. It is expected that at some point there will be a new leader who will intervene and stop these senseless killings of their own people.
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        A new leader whose first action is to lose a war? I wonder how long he gets to live. When you just stop the military action it is called a "ceasefire" and requires agreement of both sides. We might see that eventually. Just leaving the land (and people) that, as you have said, people has died for, and doing that for nothing - I don't see how that could be popular. I also fail to see how it may be a good bargaining point. When you give anything in advance you have less stuff to bargain with.
        NoPie 4y ago
        Putin lost the war. A new leader would be a man of courage to say that clearly. And he would lead the country to prosperity instead of more killings and stagnation.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        Who needs your prosperity promises if you turn 5 million of their compatriots into refugees, captives, or worse? Russians've seen that kind of "prosperity" in the 90s and I don't think they're going to fall for this one more time. If you think Ukraine have won the war, let's see how they arrange the life on all the lands that they have already reclaimed.
        NoPie 4y ago
        No one is going to fall for the promises of the USSR system, that's for sure. 5 million Ukrainians already run away from it. I think they are doing great, much better than those who stayed in a war zone (where many were brutally tortured or killed). As soon as the war ends, many of them will come back. In fact, many are already returning.

by NoPie 4y ago

Loss? People changing countries is not loss of lives. Not even remotely so. The way out is very simple – the war can be stopped in the same way as in Afghanistan.

thriftwy 4y ago

In Afghanistan, Soviet Union has left behind an allied secular government which would outlive the USSR by a few years. It was not like the American disengagement with people falling off planes. If people changing countries is not a big deal, why does not Ukraine admit the loss of territories it does not control since 2014? Until that happens, or Russia is defeated militarily, I see no grounds in expecting the war to stop. Ceasefires are possible but those won't last forever either.

trasz 4y ago
>If people changing countries is not a big deal, why does not Ukraine admit the loss of territories it does not control since 2014? Because we know what Russians do to civilians. Hundred thousand victims in Mariupol didn’t murder themselves. And yes, this means the war won’t end until at least couple of thousands young people from Moscow and Petersburg return home in pieces. Which means they need to get to the front first - for now the Russians fighting are ethnic minorities from Moscow’s colonies - and this means the sooner the draft starts the better. They are starting to enroll the homeless, which is a good sign.
NoPie 4y ago
Why don't Russia admit that if Russia had not started the war in 2014, countless people in those territories and beyond would not been killed? The only way to end this conflict peacefully is for Russia to retreat.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  The first part of your claim might as well be true. But the second one isn't. Russia has large number of Russian citizens there now, and is not leaving them behind. I don't see that happening. Ukraine does not want to leave their citizens behind either. So it seems that the conflict is not ending peacefully. Maybe it's not ending at all. Think Kashmir.
  - NoPie 4y ago
    Russia does not only leave their own people behind but actively send more to die. Of course, there will be some limit how far they can go. It is expected that at some point there will be a new leader who will intervene and stop these senseless killings of their own people.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      A new leader whose first action is to lose a war? I wonder how long he gets to live. When you just stop the military action it is called a "ceasefire" and requires agreement of both sides. We might see that eventually. Just leaving the land (and people) that, as you have said, people has died for, and doing that for nothing - I don't see how that could be popular. I also fail to see how it may be a good bargaining point. When you give anything in advance you have less stuff to bargain with.
      - NoPie 4y ago
        Putin lost the war. A new leader would be a man of courage to say that clearly. And he would lead the country to prosperity instead of more killings and stagnation.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        Who needs your prosperity promises if you turn 5 million of their compatriots into refugees, captives, or worse? Russians've seen that kind of "prosperity" in the 90s and I don't think they're going to fall for this one more time. If you think Ukraine have won the war, let's see how they arrange the life on all the lands that they have already reclaimed.
        NoPie 4y ago
        No one is going to fall for the promises of the USSR system, that's for sure. 5 million Ukrainians already run away from it. I think they are doing great, much better than those who stayed in a war zone (where many were brutally tortured or killed). As soon as the war ends, many of them will come back. In fact, many are already returning.