4 ms·

> What should they have done? Negotiate for peace. Just as the US would object to Mexico joining a military alliance with e.g., China, Russia objects to Ukrai

> What should they have done? Negotiate for peace. Just as the US would object to Mexico joining a military alliance with e.g., China, Russia objects to Ukraine joining a military alliance with the US. Even if you do not believe Russia when they said this is the main issue, calling their bluff would have cost nothing, but potentially saved many lives. Wars end with negotiation. Eventually these negotiations will take place. There will just be fewer Ukrainians and Russians around to witness them. And, if NATO membership was the primary issue, this war could have been avoided if the Clinton administration had not rebuffed Russia in their request to join NATO themselves. As to the US proposed sanctions, I suspect that if Germany had not agreed, the EU as a whole would not be participating. And, that if Merkel was still in power, that Germany would not have agreed.

invalidname 4y ago
Every single leader went there and begged Putin not to invade. They physically couldn't join NATO because they had disputed territories and the US would have kept the status quo. This is a Neville Chamberlain argument. No I'm not comparing Putin to Hitler but the motivations of any dictator are the same. The west *tried* repeatedly to appease Putin so this claim is just patently false and proven to be so. Let's prove: * Invasion of Crimea was a test from Putin's side. The west tried all political options to no avail. * Then he started a "rebellion" and again the west wasn't successful with negotiation * Before he invaded Biden went public and explained EXACTLY what he was going to do. A smart man would have retreated. This would have humiliated Biden and might have paved the way for Trump to get back into office. But he was stupid and invaded So no. He isn't a person to negotiate with. He's a liar who doesn't respect the agreements his country signed.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  > Every single leader went there and begged Putin not to invade. Even if that were true, that is not negotiation. Negotiation implies give and take. Given that the US already agreed not to expand NATO to Russia's border (honored by Bush Sr., but broken by Clinton), a good starting point to negotiation would be to agree to honor past commitments. The vast majority of the people in Crimea (as Donbas) are Russian speaking, and voted to join Russia[1]. Part of the context leading up to the unrest in Crimea was a far-right government in Kieve that proposed policies against Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens[2]. I'm not opining on Russia's actions in 2014 or today, just pointing out that things were and are a lot more complicated than the dominant narrative in the west (I was surprised to find any US mainstream news source that reported on the referendum, at all, to use as a reference). [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeans-vote-overwhelmingly-to-secede-from-ukraine-join-russia/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeans-vote-overwhelmingly-to... [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/4/9/why-ethnopolitics-doesnt-work-in-ukraine/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/4/9/why-ethnopolitic...
  - invalidname 4y ago
    Russia organizes fake elections wherever it invades to create a pretext of support and democracy. There's no external supervision of the elections and they have no bearing on the reality. When you have no true free speech, state TV blasting disinformation, etc. there's no real elections. Putin repeatedly violated agreements signed by his predecessors including over Crimea with flimsy excuses like the one you're parroting. We're talking about a guy whose opposition is all dead or in jail. You're arguing for a murderous dictator. The only policies were the removal of requirement to teach Russian everywhere. It was a ridiculous excuse to go to war. You don't get Russian in your school let's bomb you and your neighbors. There was no Russian heritage discrimination but there was openness to the west which did make Putin nervous. Clinton adding countries to NATO is not Ukraine's fault and has absolutely nothing to do with them. The invasion had the opposite effect on Russia and shows how stupid Putin really is because now NATO is at his door. Had he not invaded things would have been better off for him.
    - sillystuff 4y ago
      > You're arguing for a murderous dictator. I'm not arguing for anybody. You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. But, please do not attribute to me positions I have not expressed. My actual positions (as stated above): War kills and maims people. Killing and maiming people should be avoided. Russia made statements about why they felt the need for war. Taking those statements at face value would have caused no harm if they were false-- we would simply be in the same place as we are today with war. Taking those statements at face value could have saved many Ukrainian and Russian lives if they were true and addressed. Russia's stated concerns have not been addressed in peace negotiations, so we do not know if war could have been avoided or if the war could be brought to an end sooner. Russians and Ukrainians are currently killing and maiming each other. The history of the situation is complicated-- there is more than the typical western narrative encompasses. Russia must bear responsibility for their decision to go to war. But, the US is possibly antagonistic toward negotiations. At a minimum, the US has not engaged in negotiations nor addressed Russia's stated concerns and thus threw away a potential opportunity to prevent bloodshed. US/NATO pumping weapons into Ukraine serves to extend the conflict (and the death count) before the inevitable negotiations to end the conflict. To summarize, I'd prefer if we made an effort to not kill people.
petercooper 4y ago
Just as the US would object to Mexico joining a military alliance with e.g., China, Russia objects to Ukraine joining a military alliance with the US. Your analogy is missing that the US forcibly annexed the Baja California peninsula, say, prior to Mexico attempting to join said alliance. Multiple Ukrainian governments prior to 2014 had said they had no intention of joining NATO. Crimea changed their mind.

invalidname 4y ago

Every single leader went there and begged Putin not to invade. They physically couldn't join NATO because they had disputed territories and the US would have kept the status quo. This is a Neville Chamberlain argument. No I'm not comparing Putin to Hitler but the motivations of any dictator are the same. The west *tried* repeatedly to appease Putin so this claim is just patently false and proven to be so. Let's prove: * Invasion of Crimea was a test from Putin's side. The west tried all political options to no avail. * Then he started a "rebellion" and again the west wasn't successful with negotiation * Before he invaded Biden went public and explained EXACTLY what he was going to do. A smart man would have retreated. This would have humiliated Biden and might have paved the way for Trump to get back into office. But he was stupid and invaded So no. He isn't a person to negotiate with. He's a liar who doesn't respect the agreements his country signed.

sillystuff 4y ago
> Every single leader went there and begged Putin not to invade. Even if that were true, that is not negotiation. Negotiation implies give and take. Given that the US already agreed not to expand NATO to Russia's border (honored by Bush Sr., but broken by Clinton), a good starting point to negotiation would be to agree to honor past commitments. The vast majority of the people in Crimea (as Donbas) are Russian speaking, and voted to join Russia[1]. Part of the context leading up to the unrest in Crimea was a far-right government in Kieve that proposed policies against Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens[2]. I'm not opining on Russia's actions in 2014 or today, just pointing out that things were and are a lot more complicated than the dominant narrative in the west (I was surprised to find any US mainstream news source that reported on the referendum, at all, to use as a reference). [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeans-vote-overwhelmingly-to-secede-from-ukraine-join-russia/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeans-vote-overwhelmingly-to... [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/4/9/why-ethnopolitics-doesnt-work-in-ukraine/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/4/9/why-ethnopolitic...
- invalidname 4y ago
  Russia organizes fake elections wherever it invades to create a pretext of support and democracy. There's no external supervision of the elections and they have no bearing on the reality. When you have no true free speech, state TV blasting disinformation, etc. there's no real elections. Putin repeatedly violated agreements signed by his predecessors including over Crimea with flimsy excuses like the one you're parroting. We're talking about a guy whose opposition is all dead or in jail. You're arguing for a murderous dictator. The only policies were the removal of requirement to teach Russian everywhere. It was a ridiculous excuse to go to war. You don't get Russian in your school let's bomb you and your neighbors. There was no Russian heritage discrimination but there was openness to the west which did make Putin nervous. Clinton adding countries to NATO is not Ukraine's fault and has absolutely nothing to do with them. The invasion had the opposite effect on Russia and shows how stupid Putin really is because now NATO is at his door. Had he not invaded things would have been better off for him.
  - sillystuff 4y ago
    > You're arguing for a murderous dictator. I'm not arguing for anybody. You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. But, please do not attribute to me positions I have not expressed. My actual positions (as stated above): War kills and maims people. Killing and maiming people should be avoided. Russia made statements about why they felt the need for war. Taking those statements at face value would have caused no harm if they were false-- we would simply be in the same place as we are today with war. Taking those statements at face value could have saved many Ukrainian and Russian lives if they were true and addressed. Russia's stated concerns have not been addressed in peace negotiations, so we do not know if war could have been avoided or if the war could be brought to an end sooner. Russians and Ukrainians are currently killing and maiming each other. The history of the situation is complicated-- there is more than the typical western narrative encompasses. Russia must bear responsibility for their decision to go to war. But, the US is possibly antagonistic toward negotiations. At a minimum, the US has not engaged in negotiations nor addressed Russia's stated concerns and thus threw away a potential opportunity to prevent bloodshed. US/NATO pumping weapons into Ukraine serves to extend the conflict (and the death count) before the inevitable negotiations to end the conflict. To summarize, I'd prefer if we made an effort to not kill people.

petercooper 4y ago

Just as the US would object to Mexico joining a military alliance with e.g., China, Russia objects to Ukraine joining a military alliance with the US. Your analogy is missing that the US forcibly annexed the Baja California peninsula, say, prior to Mexico attempting to join said alliance. Multiple Ukrainian governments prior to 2014 had said they had no intention of joining NATO. Crimea changed their mind.