9 ms·

Aggressive war is inexcusable and I condemn all nations that engage in it including Russia and the United States. Ukraine has a right to its sovereignty just as

Aggressive war is inexcusable and I condemn all nations that engage in it including Russia and the United States. Ukraine has a right to its sovereignty just as all other nations do, but what you posted is shallow thinking. Look at a map of Europe, put yourself in the mind of a highly suspicious and pessimistic person and ask yourself "how would I invade Russia?" "how do I get an SRBM or MRBM within striking range of Moscow?" "how do I increase my ability to have Russian speaking agents plausibly cross into and out of Russia?" Now put yourself in the mind of someone else seeking power and look at the map and, keeping an eye to history, ask yourself "what is the most effective way to destabilize Russia without involving US forces?" Both parties are playing a very dangerous game that has a non-zero chance of ending with a nuclear exchange, limited or not. If peace was the goal then both sides need to agree to an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of both military and political forces. A new agreement needs to be reached that places Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country and both sides should pay for reconstruction efforts and restitution to survivors. Of course, peace is never the goal.

0xBDB 4y ago
"Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country" Based on what Ukraine at least appears to want, especially now, if it is sovereign it won't be neutral, and if forced to be neutral it isn't really sovereign.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  Check your logic. If you want to be my room mate and I refuse, does that make you less of an individual?
manuelabeledo 4y ago
> Look at a map of Europe, put yourself in the mind of a highly suspicious and pessimistic person and ask yourself "how would I invade Russia?" "how do I get an SRBM or MRBM within striking range of Moscow?" "how do I increase my ability to have Russian speaking agents plausibly cross into and out of Russia?" You don't need Ukraine to do any of this. Poland and the Baltic states are NATO members already.
haspok 4y ago
> If peace was the goal then both sides need to agree to an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of both military and political forces. A new agreement needs to be reached that places Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country and both sides should pay for reconstruction efforts and restitution to survivors. This is clear Russian propaganda. You "seem to forget" that Russia attacked Ukraine, committed several war crimes... Ukraine would be the happiest if the Russians GTFO and left them to be . They should even pay for the reconstruction costs and should be punished for their war crimes. That would almost make things even.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  As I've replied to others, "both sides" here means US and Russia. Both are culpable in this war and it is Ukraine that has to suffer the consequences.
jeromegv 4y ago
> Both parties are No, not both sides. Ukraine was perfectly to stay home and take care of their own citizens. There's only one country that invaded the other and started stealing their kids and bomb their population. Russia can leave anytime, peace will be immediate.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  Sorry, I realize English may not be your first language. When I say both sides I mean the United States and Russia. Ukraine is just stuck in the middle getting f'ed from both ends.
arrrg 4y ago
Just to be clear: Russia invaded Ukraine. I’m not sure why you are both-sidesing this. Also, who are you talking about when you say "both sides"?Are you talking about Ukraine and Russia? Withdraw to where? Agreement with whom? Please be specific.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  Sorry, I thought it was clear that I meant US and Russia. That is the overarching narrative here.
  - arrrg 4y ago
    How can the US withdraw from Ukraine given that they are not fighting there? How can the US negotiate a cease fire in Ukraine over the head of Ukraine? Can you tell me how that is even supposed to be possible? That makes no sense.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      I said they should withdraw both politically and militarily. What that would look like is up to whatever agreement could be reached in peace talks. On the other points you're simply being blind to history, read about peace negotiations and you'll find that the parties involved extend far beyond just the combatants especially in conflicts adjacent to super-powers.
      - arrrg 4y ago
        How do you want to achieve that? What path do you see for such a solution? What you are suggesting ist just not realistic in any way. It’s pure fantasy.
diego_moita 4y ago
You're stuck in the 19th century imperialist mindset, like most of your Russian/Chinese compatriots. Come to the 21st century and ask yourself: "why war when we can have commerce"?
- foverzar 4y ago
  > "why war when we can have commerce"? Can't help but sad chuckle over this whole clash of rams battle of perspectives and the fact that Russia, Ukraine and other western countries had somewhat great relationships at the beginning of the century. One could ask the same question from the Russian perspective when analyzing how Russia-West relations have deteriorated from Russia being in love with it, towards Russia having a lovecraftian fear of it (from Russian perspective, this is more of a proxy war with the West). This is actually the TLDR of Putin's Munich speech in late 2000-something. I wonder what could be games theory solution here. Russia and the West don't trust each other and can't meet each-other expectations of peaceful coexistence - Ukraine got caught in the crossfire. What could hypothetically serve as a common ground for aligning the perspectives before it inertly escalates too far?
  - nradov 4y ago
    That's the wrong question to ask. From an amoral game theory perspective, the real question is: how can we bleed Russia to death? The ideal outcome would be to trigger multiple civil wars in Russia where various provinces break away from Moscow, leaving the rump successor state no more of a threat than North Korea. In that scenario, Russia would still have to be taken seriously as a nuclear threat but would no longer have enough conventional force to seriously threaten most of their neighbors.
    - smegger001 4y ago
      thats not ideal either a bunch of breakaway states would be eaten by china which is not something NATO wants either. from the wets prospective a quick internal cue falloewed by regim change to a more western friendly pro democracy leader that ideally is afraid of china would be the best outcome.
khochesh_kushat 4y ago
The US is taking advantage of a golden strategic opportunity, because why wouldn't they, but it's Russia scoring the own goal here. If they wanted to stop destabilizing themselves they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home. Nobody is going to follow them into Russia. They don't even have to do anything diplomatically. Just leave, no special agreements required, and the war is over. A peace that grants Russia the Sudetenland as a consolation prize along with a guarantee that Ukraine is sovereign (but with a big asterisk in that they are also not sovereign in the sense that they are able to join an alliance of their choosing to protect themselves from aggressors) is just an invitation for Russia to consolidate the new territory and prepare the next push. And not being able to see that is for me much more shallow thinking.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home I wonder if that's actually realistically true. The civil war has been going on for far longer and it will have to be dealt with. Ukrainian government seems to have also been signaling that its goal is to liberate Crimea, so this is also something that will be going on.
  - smegger001 4y ago
    home here being Russia not mearly Ukrainian land the Russians have been illegally occupying for a bit longer.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      Yeah, let our imagination run wild and suppose this happens. How would you deal with the Crimeans who got overly cozy showered with Russian Oil/Gas money?
      - actionfromafar 4y ago
        They would end up in court, but more likely they will flee while the bridge to Russia still stands.

0xBDB 4y ago

"Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country" Based on what Ukraine at least appears to want, especially now, if it is sovereign it won't be neutral, and if forced to be neutral it isn't really sovereign.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
Check your logic. If you want to be my room mate and I refuse, does that make you less of an individual?

manuelabeledo 4y ago

> Look at a map of Europe, put yourself in the mind of a highly suspicious and pessimistic person and ask yourself "how would I invade Russia?" "how do I get an SRBM or MRBM within striking range of Moscow?" "how do I increase my ability to have Russian speaking agents plausibly cross into and out of Russia?" You don't need Ukraine to do any of this. Poland and the Baltic states are NATO members already.

haspok 4y ago

> If peace was the goal then both sides need to agree to an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of both military and political forces. A new agreement needs to be reached that places Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country and both sides should pay for reconstruction efforts and restitution to survivors. This is clear Russian propaganda. You "seem to forget" that Russia attacked Ukraine, committed several war crimes... Ukraine would be the happiest if the Russians GTFO and left them to be . They should even pay for the reconstruction costs and should be punished for their war crimes. That would almost make things even.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway4aday 4y ago
As I've replied to others, "both sides" here means US and Russia. Both are culpable in this war and it is Ukraine that has to suffer the consequences.

jeromegv 4y ago

> Both parties are No, not both sides. Ukraine was perfectly to stay home and take care of their own citizens. There's only one country that invaded the other and started stealing their kids and bomb their population. Russia can leave anytime, peace will be immediate.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
Sorry, I realize English may not be your first language. When I say both sides I mean the United States and Russia. Ukraine is just stuck in the middle getting f'ed from both ends.

arrrg 4y ago

Just to be clear: Russia invaded Ukraine. I’m not sure why you are both-sidesing this. Also, who are you talking about when you say "both sides"?Are you talking about Ukraine and Russia? Withdraw to where? Agreement with whom? Please be specific.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
Sorry, I thought it was clear that I meant US and Russia. That is the overarching narrative here.
- arrrg 4y ago
  How can the US withdraw from Ukraine given that they are not fighting there? How can the US negotiate a cease fire in Ukraine over the head of Ukraine? Can you tell me how that is even supposed to be possible? That makes no sense.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    I said they should withdraw both politically and militarily. What that would look like is up to whatever agreement could be reached in peace talks. On the other points you're simply being blind to history, read about peace negotiations and you'll find that the parties involved extend far beyond just the combatants especially in conflicts adjacent to super-powers.
    - arrrg 4y ago
      How do you want to achieve that? What path do you see for such a solution? What you are suggesting ist just not realistic in any way. It’s pure fantasy.

diego_moita 4y ago

You're stuck in the 19th century imperialist mindset, like most of your Russian/Chinese compatriots. Come to the 21st century and ask yourself: "why war when we can have commerce"?

foverzar 4y ago
> "why war when we can have commerce"? Can't help but sad chuckle over this whole clash of rams battle of perspectives and the fact that Russia, Ukraine and other western countries had somewhat great relationships at the beginning of the century. One could ask the same question from the Russian perspective when analyzing how Russia-West relations have deteriorated from Russia being in love with it, towards Russia having a lovecraftian fear of it (from Russian perspective, this is more of a proxy war with the West). This is actually the TLDR of Putin's Munich speech in late 2000-something. I wonder what could be games theory solution here. Russia and the West don't trust each other and can't meet each-other expectations of peaceful coexistence - Ukraine got caught in the crossfire. What could hypothetically serve as a common ground for aligning the perspectives before it inertly escalates too far?
- nradov 4y ago
  That's the wrong question to ask. From an amoral game theory perspective, the real question is: how can we bleed Russia to death? The ideal outcome would be to trigger multiple civil wars in Russia where various provinces break away from Moscow, leaving the rump successor state no more of a threat than North Korea. In that scenario, Russia would still have to be taken seriously as a nuclear threat but would no longer have enough conventional force to seriously threaten most of their neighbors.
  - smegger001 4y ago
    thats not ideal either a bunch of breakaway states would be eaten by china which is not something NATO wants either. from the wets prospective a quick internal cue falloewed by regim change to a more western friendly pro democracy leader that ideally is afraid of china would be the best outcome.

khochesh_kushat 4y ago

The US is taking advantage of a golden strategic opportunity, because why wouldn't they, but it's Russia scoring the own goal here. If they wanted to stop destabilizing themselves they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home. Nobody is going to follow them into Russia. They don't even have to do anything diplomatically. Just leave, no special agreements required, and the war is over. A peace that grants Russia the Sudetenland as a consolation prize along with a guarantee that Ukraine is sovereign (but with a big asterisk in that they are also not sovereign in the sense that they are able to join an alliance of their choosing to protect themselves from aggressors) is just an invitation for Russia to consolidate the new territory and prepare the next push. And not being able to see that is for me much more shallow thinking.

foverzar 4y ago
> they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home I wonder if that's actually realistically true. The civil war has been going on for far longer and it will have to be dealt with. Ukrainian government seems to have also been signaling that its goal is to liberate Crimea, so this is also something that will be going on.
- smegger001 4y ago
  home here being Russia not mearly Ukrainian land the Russians have been illegally occupying for a bit longer.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    Yeah, let our imagination run wild and suppose this happens. How would you deal with the Crimeans who got overly cozy showered with Russian Oil/Gas money?
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      They would end up in court, but more likely they will flee while the bridge to Russia still stands.