11 ms·

The thing is that nonetheless every war ever has ended as part of a diplomatic process. When this doesn’t happen you have something like the Korean War, which i

The thing is that nonetheless every war ever has ended as part of a diplomatic process. When this doesn’t happen you have something like the Korean War, which is technically still going on. Also it’s bonkers that someone thinks Ukraine is untrustworthy this situation. Didn’t they give up all their nuclear weapons in a signed treaty under the guarantee that Russia promised to respect their territorial integrity? Doesn’t Russia now posses territory that’s “historically” German or Japanese, and expects that territory to be respected as Russian, regardless of the history? Ukraine is Ukraine, and the thing preventing the situation from reaching a diplomatic ending, which again is how all wars end, is that Russia can’t bring itself to back down now, and everything else is just excuses from the land of fiction that only work when applied unilaterally.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zmgsabst 4y ago
[flagged]
- pjc50 4y ago
  > Russia and Ukraine nearly had a diplomatic solution in March, until NATO stopped them. You're going to need some reliable evidence for this and an explanation of what the solution actually was, as well as why the Ukranians aren't making more of this.
- yokoprime 4y ago
  Wow, that’s a lot of unverified claims. What is the source for the diplomatic solution from March 22? What’s the source for NATO stopping a diplomatic solution?
- justinclift 4y ago
  > Russia and Ukraine nearly had a diplomatic solution in March, until NATO stopped them. That's super, super, super unrealistic, as Russia has not indicated at any time they're willing to vacate Crimea. Which is the absolute baseline for Russia to do. Without that, anything Russia is claiming is really just a delaying tactic to let them prepare/re-equip for their next invasion wave.
blub 4y ago
Nukes are an irrelevant issue that keeps getting brought up. Ukraine were pressured by Russia and the US and were offered incentives to hand the nuclear weapons to Russia. Furthermore the US even had to help Russia itself with the dismantling and disposing of some weapons over the years. It was in nobody’s interest for yet another country to have nukes when poverty and corruption would have almost certainly led to “losing” them or losing them one way or another. You’ve commented on the historical territory out of the blue, I don’t see the parent commenter mentioning that. Keep in my mind that Ukraine possesses territory they gained after WW2 as part of the Soviet Union and there’s no indication that they want to return it. Opening up these old territorial disputes is not a good idea. In general trying to present Ukraine as fundamentally different from Russia as far as corruption or trustworthiness goes when they were both part of the Soviet Union and very close until 2014 is dubious and not supported by facts.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Nukes are an irrelevant issue that keeps getting brought up. The Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agrees to divest itself of nukes in exchange from formal guarantees of territorial integrity from Russia, is hardly irrelevant here.
  - blub 4y ago
    It seems like it is, but this agreement is typically presented for two reasons: * as a way to show that a country should never give up its nukes. But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. * as a way of showing Russia won’t honor its agreements. But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus (other signatories which also gave up their nukes). And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. At the end of the day, Russia will probably respect an official treaty if the incentives and disincentives are right. Much like China or the US IMO.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. Sure. Russia later reneged on the incentives by invading Ukraine (repeatedly!). Thus, relevant. > But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus. "What about all the murders I didn't do?" isn't a great defense. > And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. Cool, then they can stop whining about the supposed NATO "agreement" not to expand, which was not an official treaty, not legally binding, and doesn't have an enforcement mechanism.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zmgsabst 4y ago

[flagged]

pjc50 4y ago
> Russia and Ukraine nearly had a diplomatic solution in March, until NATO stopped them. You're going to need some reliable evidence for this and an explanation of what the solution actually was, as well as why the Ukranians aren't making more of this.
yokoprime 4y ago
Wow, that’s a lot of unverified claims. What is the source for the diplomatic solution from March 22? What’s the source for NATO stopping a diplomatic solution?
justinclift 4y ago
> Russia and Ukraine nearly had a diplomatic solution in March, until NATO stopped them. That's super, super, super unrealistic, as Russia has not indicated at any time they're willing to vacate Crimea. Which is the absolute baseline for Russia to do. Without that, anything Russia is claiming is really just a delaying tactic to let them prepare/re-equip for their next invasion wave.

blub 4y ago

Nukes are an irrelevant issue that keeps getting brought up. Ukraine were pressured by Russia and the US and were offered incentives to hand the nuclear weapons to Russia. Furthermore the US even had to help Russia itself with the dismantling and disposing of some weapons over the years. It was in nobody’s interest for yet another country to have nukes when poverty and corruption would have almost certainly led to “losing” them or losing them one way or another. You’ve commented on the historical territory out of the blue, I don’t see the parent commenter mentioning that. Keep in my mind that Ukraine possesses territory they gained after WW2 as part of the Soviet Union and there’s no indication that they want to return it. Opening up these old territorial disputes is not a good idea. In general trying to present Ukraine as fundamentally different from Russia as far as corruption or trustworthiness goes when they were both part of the Soviet Union and very close until 2014 is dubious and not supported by facts.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Nukes are an irrelevant issue that keeps getting brought up. The Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agrees to divest itself of nukes in exchange from formal guarantees of territorial integrity from Russia, is hardly irrelevant here.
- blub 4y ago
  It seems like it is, but this agreement is typically presented for two reasons: * as a way to show that a country should never give up its nukes. But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. * as a way of showing Russia won’t honor its agreements. But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus (other signatories which also gave up their nukes). And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. At the end of the day, Russia will probably respect an official treaty if the incentives and disincentives are right. Much like China or the US IMO.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > But they were forced and incentivized to give them up. Sure. Russia later reneged on the incentives by invading Ukraine (repeatedly!). Thus, relevant. > But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus. "What about all the murders I didn't do?" isn't a great defense. > And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. Cool, then they can stop whining about the supposed NATO "agreement" not to expand, which was not an official treaty, not legally binding, and doesn't have an enforcement mechanism.