6 ms·

So you think everyone should just allow Russia to take over any country it wants?

zmgsabst 3y ago
No — but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities, rather than frantically send Boris Johnson to subvert it. Russia has consistently angled for Ukraine to be a neutral border between two blocs to facilitate trade — and that clearly would have been better for Ukraine than a senseless slaughter which destroyed a generation, by maiming or killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions. But that wouldn’t have satisfied warhawks like Victoria Nuland and the geriatric Cold Warriors (TM) who are intent on their senile, unhinged drive to destroy Russia as a nation.
- consumer451 3y ago
  Let me skip over a bunch of your points and just get to the end. Would any of your theoretical compromises have satisfied the Cold Warriors in the Kremlin? These people literally believe that NATO is coming to invade Moscow. How do you negotiate with someone who lives in a place so disconnected from reality?
  - toss1 3y ago
    It is worse than that - No one in the Kremlin believes that NATO is coming for them. There are many proofs, but one is that Russia PULLED troops away from the Finnish border when Finland joined. That line is merely one of dozens of bullshirt excuses they trot out to claim victimhood and "justify" their relentless aggression.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      Yep. The actual answer is they believe the West is weak and easily bored. The Russian government has never cared about dead Russians, and believes just waiting us out will win them what they need at a cost they don't care about. I mean, it's going to absolutely wreck Russia, but again: the Russian government for basically the last 1,000 years sees the citizen as a resource to be expended for it's greatness.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  Ah yes, the good old “The West made us do it!” defense.
- ranger207 3y ago
  > But that wouldn’t have satisfied... Ukrainians who expressed a clear interest in more closely aligning with the west and not with Russia? And regardless, does any of that give Russia the right to invade another country?
- Bud 3y ago
  [dead]
- khokhol 3y ago
  The only "peace" settlement Putin would have accepted by Feb 2022 would have required the permanent secession of the then-occupied regions (and likely then some) to Russia. That clearly would have been better for Ukraine As if you know better than the Ukrainians themselves as to what's best for them.
  - khokhol 3y ago
    Should be "cession of ..."
  - jabl 3y ago
    Indeed. And if anything, if Ukraine would have accepted such a "peace" settlement, the result would only have been the mysterious green men appearing in the next regions in Ukraine near the border. Rinse and repeat.
- hash872 3y ago
  >but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities Ukraine negotiated nonstop with Russia from 2014 (when Russia first seized some of their territory) until literally 1 week before the invasion in 2022. It was 8 years of nonstop negotiations, brokered by France & Germany. I'm always amazed more people don't know about this. How did negotiating work out for Ukraine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
  - xanthor 3y ago
    What do you think about the conclusions of this piece published by a former UN official, a former NATO military official, and an academic? https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von-der-schulenburg-hajo-funke-harald-kujat-peace-for-ukraine https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von-der-schulenburg-hajo-...
    - ganeshkrishnan 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - mopsi 3y ago
      Carbon copy of Russian propaganda, with central thesis that Ukraine doesn't want to fight, but Americans are forcing them to. For example, from the article: In March 2022, direct peace negotiations between Ukrainian and Russian delegations and mediation efforts by the then Israeli Prime Minster, Naftali Bennet created a genuine chance for ending the war peacefully only four to five weeks after Russia had invaded Ukraine. However, instead of ending the war through negotiations as Ukrainian President Zelensky and his government appeared to have wanted, he ultimately bowed to pressures from some Western powers to abandon a negotiated solution. Western powers wanted this war to continue in the hope to break Russia. Bennett has refuted all this. According to him: 1. There was no negotiated solution. 2. Western powers were forcing Ukraine to negotiate with Russia and reach a solution at any cost. 3. Western powers relieved the pressure to negotiate after mass grave was discovered in Bucha and leaving Ukrainians on occupied territories to the same fate became indefensible. The entire narrative seen in your article originates from an interview with Bennett that Russian propaganda machine picked up, painting a completely different picture as if western powers had forced Ukraine into war. They equated "less pressure to negotiate" with "forcing into war". That is not supported by facts. Western powers stalled military aid to Ukraine every way they could in the hope that forcing Ukraine into negotiations with Russia would sweep the whole thing under the rug and business with Russians could continue as usual, as it did after Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, and the invasion of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea in 2014. If western powers wanted war, then where were the jets, tanks and artillery pieces that Ukraine was asking for? Why are they tiptoeing around Russia and providing too little, too late out of escalation fears? Members of Ukrainian delegation at the negotiations have recently said that they negotiated just to satisfy western demands. Ukrainian delegation had no confidence that Russia would follow any agreements. Furthermore, experts like Kozyrev, the former minister of foreign affairs of Russia (now living in exile), have pointed out that the negotiations deserve no attention at all, because the people negotiating on Russian side were total nobodies with no authority, and that the entire exercise looked like a stalling tactic.
- dghughes 3y ago
  I watched a news segment where a former government official close to Putin said people don't understand him. Putin goes into incredible detail when planning military campaigns. For Georgia and Ukraine Putin had been planning the attacks for decades. Plus he has a Plan B, Plan C etc. all that he wants he's decided already years ago and is not interested in anything else. You missed your chance for peace talks by a decade or two.
  - jabl 3y ago
    Planning the lightning strike and capture of Kyiv for decades? Truly a strategic genius, Putin is.
    - MagnumOpus 3y ago
      Underestimating the enemy rarely ends up well. The decapitation strikes might have worked if Ukraine didn't have advance warning from very detailed intelligence, and if the Russian military was as competent as everyone assumed.
      - jabl 3y ago
        Not saying Putin should be underestimated. Even if his strategic cunning is on the level of a village idiot, he clearly has a lot of men and material to throw into the meat grinder. And pretty clearly he doesn't give a shit about casualties either. That the West has been unable to provide sufficient support to Ukraine to stand against this aggression is a mark of shame that will take a long time to wash away.
    - dghughes 3y ago
      Yeah it's incredibly embarrassing to supposedly plan for so long only to have it fail so spectacularly. Even Georgia didn't go very well. It's hard to know if the person saying that about Putin is a plant for propaganda or if he really was being honest. He could be unknowing be spreading misinformation to benefit Putin and I could be doing the same quoting what the man said.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  Frankly, what Russia would prefer to happen in Ukraine is, to put it politely, their own fucking problem. I get why they might prefer that. But when they don't get their way, they are not allowed to invade a sovereign nation and slaughter thousands of civilians. Ukraine is allowed to pick who it wants to be associated with and Russia doesn't get a say. Also, at this point it is hilariously obvious that A) Russia will never take all of Ukraine like they wanted (huh, how would that have been for a "nuetral border between the two) and B) whatever portion they don't take will be far far more closely aligned than the west than would have been possible in the absense of their invasion. Even if you buy it as a reasonable desire and reasonble response to not getting their way, it has very, very obviously not gotten them what they wanted.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      > I only pointed out Russia’s behavior to highlight they’ve consistently worked towards an amicable settlement In what world is annexing territory you don't even control on the basis of a referendum you canceled before rescheduling due to losses on the battlefield working towards an amicable settlement? Since February 2022, I haven't seen much evidence that Russia has made any serious attempts to achieve an amicable settlement, much less consistently worked towards those goals.
      - zmgsabst 3y ago
        Russia was negotiating even after hostilities escalated — up until April 2022, when Boris Johnson scuttled the peace settlement. Since then, Russia has repeatedly offered to negotiate a settlement, but Ukraine refuses to negotiate. You can believe that’s a good idea, but indisputably it’s Ukraine who won’t negotiate.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  Thanks for the lesson, comrade.
- rasz 3y ago
  I want to come to your house, steal all of your stuff and pets, then burn it down. Lets negotiate! Lets find a happy middle ground, what do you say? Oh and by the way Im already living in your attic and regularly pee in your fridge.
- toss1 3y ago
  BULLSHIT No treaty with Putin has ever been honored. He is attempting to rebuild the Russian Empire and "peace" agreements are merely used to get the opponents to stand down while Russia prepares aggression. Putin and his govt have said that they have rights to the Baltics, Poland, Germany and more. They have said that Ukraine should not, indeed DOES NOT exist. The very existence of the idea of a free, and especially prosperous Ukraine is seen by them as an existential threat. And they may be right, as it certainly makes Russians wonder how those awful Ukrainians can live so well, having toilets and all. Read Winter Is Coming by Garry Kasparov. He's a former world chess champion, former candidate for President of Russia, and deeply involved in global democracy. He knows more than you or I ever will. No one intends to destroy Russia as a nation. It is the autocracies of Russia, Iran, NK, China, etc. who see that international law and order threaten their criminal way of life, and are working hard to destroy democracy. If you are so big on Russia, go live there and report back after a year (if you aren't conscripted and killed in one of their 'meat assaults' on Ukraine.
ganeshkrishnan 3y ago
[flagged]

No — but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities, rather than frantically send Boris Johnson to subvert it. Russia has consistently angled for Ukraine to be a neutral border between two blocs to facilitate trade — and that clearly would have been better for Ukraine than a senseless slaughter which destroyed a generation, by maiming or killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions. But that wouldn’t have satisfied warhawks like Victoria Nuland and the geriatric Cold Warriors (TM) who are intent on their senile, unhinged drive to destroy Russia as a nation.

consumer451 3y ago
Let me skip over a bunch of your points and just get to the end. Would any of your theoretical compromises have satisfied the Cold Warriors in the Kremlin? These people literally believe that NATO is coming to invade Moscow. How do you negotiate with someone who lives in a place so disconnected from reality?
- toss1 3y ago
  It is worse than that - No one in the Kremlin believes that NATO is coming for them. There are many proofs, but one is that Russia PULLED troops away from the Finnish border when Finland joined. That line is merely one of dozens of bullshirt excuses they trot out to claim victimhood and "justify" their relentless aggression.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Yep. The actual answer is they believe the West is weak and easily bored. The Russian government has never cared about dead Russians, and believes just waiting us out will win them what they need at a cost they don't care about. I mean, it's going to absolutely wreck Russia, but again: the Russian government for basically the last 1,000 years sees the citizen as a resource to be expended for it's greatness.
cycrutchfield 3y ago
Ah yes, the good old “The West made us do it!” defense.
ranger207 3y ago
> But that wouldn’t have satisfied... Ukrainians who expressed a clear interest in more closely aligning with the west and not with Russia? And regardless, does any of that give Russia the right to invade another country?
Bud 3y ago
[dead]
khokhol 3y ago
The only "peace" settlement Putin would have accepted by Feb 2022 would have required the permanent secession of the then-occupied regions (and likely then some) to Russia. That clearly would have been better for Ukraine As if you know better than the Ukrainians themselves as to what's best for them.
- khokhol 3y ago
  Should be "cession of ..."
- jabl 3y ago
  Indeed. And if anything, if Ukraine would have accepted such a "peace" settlement, the result would only have been the mysterious green men appearing in the next regions in Ukraine near the border. Rinse and repeat.
hash872 3y ago
>but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities Ukraine negotiated nonstop with Russia from 2014 (when Russia first seized some of their territory) until literally 1 week before the invasion in 2022. It was 8 years of nonstop negotiations, brokered by France & Germany. I'm always amazed more people don't know about this. How did negotiating work out for Ukraine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
- xanthor 3y ago
  What do you think about the conclusions of this piece published by a former UN official, a former NATO military official, and an academic? https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von-der-schulenburg-hajo-funke-harald-kujat-peace-for-ukraine https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von-der-schulenburg-hajo-...
  - ganeshkrishnan 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - mopsi 3y ago
    Carbon copy of Russian propaganda, with central thesis that Ukraine doesn't want to fight, but Americans are forcing them to. For example, from the article: In March 2022, direct peace negotiations between Ukrainian and Russian delegations and mediation efforts by the then Israeli Prime Minster, Naftali Bennet created a genuine chance for ending the war peacefully only four to five weeks after Russia had invaded Ukraine. However, instead of ending the war through negotiations as Ukrainian President Zelensky and his government appeared to have wanted, he ultimately bowed to pressures from some Western powers to abandon a negotiated solution. Western powers wanted this war to continue in the hope to break Russia. Bennett has refuted all this. According to him: 1. There was no negotiated solution. 2. Western powers were forcing Ukraine to negotiate with Russia and reach a solution at any cost. 3. Western powers relieved the pressure to negotiate after mass grave was discovered in Bucha and leaving Ukrainians on occupied territories to the same fate became indefensible. The entire narrative seen in your article originates from an interview with Bennett that Russian propaganda machine picked up, painting a completely different picture as if western powers had forced Ukraine into war. They equated "less pressure to negotiate" with "forcing into war". That is not supported by facts. Western powers stalled military aid to Ukraine every way they could in the hope that forcing Ukraine into negotiations with Russia would sweep the whole thing under the rug and business with Russians could continue as usual, as it did after Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, and the invasion of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea in 2014. If western powers wanted war, then where were the jets, tanks and artillery pieces that Ukraine was asking for? Why are they tiptoeing around Russia and providing too little, too late out of escalation fears? Members of Ukrainian delegation at the negotiations have recently said that they negotiated just to satisfy western demands. Ukrainian delegation had no confidence that Russia would follow any agreements. Furthermore, experts like Kozyrev, the former minister of foreign affairs of Russia (now living in exile), have pointed out that the negotiations deserve no attention at all, because the people negotiating on Russian side were total nobodies with no authority, and that the entire exercise looked like a stalling tactic.
dghughes 3y ago
I watched a news segment where a former government official close to Putin said people don't understand him. Putin goes into incredible detail when planning military campaigns. For Georgia and Ukraine Putin had been planning the attacks for decades. Plus he has a Plan B, Plan C etc. all that he wants he's decided already years ago and is not interested in anything else. You missed your chance for peace talks by a decade or two.
- jabl 3y ago
  Planning the lightning strike and capture of Kyiv for decades? Truly a strategic genius, Putin is.
  - MagnumOpus 3y ago
    Underestimating the enemy rarely ends up well. The decapitation strikes might have worked if Ukraine didn't have advance warning from very detailed intelligence, and if the Russian military was as competent as everyone assumed.
    - jabl 3y ago
      Not saying Putin should be underestimated. Even if his strategic cunning is on the level of a village idiot, he clearly has a lot of men and material to throw into the meat grinder. And pretty clearly he doesn't give a shit about casualties either. That the West has been unable to provide sufficient support to Ukraine to stand against this aggression is a mark of shame that will take a long time to wash away.
  - dghughes 3y ago
    Yeah it's incredibly embarrassing to supposedly plan for so long only to have it fail so spectacularly. Even Georgia didn't go very well. It's hard to know if the person saying that about Putin is a plant for propaganda or if he really was being honest. He could be unknowing be spreading misinformation to benefit Putin and I could be doing the same quoting what the man said.
MostlyStable 3y ago
Frankly, what Russia would prefer to happen in Ukraine is, to put it politely, their own fucking problem. I get why they might prefer that. But when they don't get their way, they are not allowed to invade a sovereign nation and slaughter thousands of civilians. Ukraine is allowed to pick who it wants to be associated with and Russia doesn't get a say. Also, at this point it is hilariously obvious that A) Russia will never take all of Ukraine like they wanted (huh, how would that have been for a "nuetral border between the two) and B) whatever portion they don't take will be far far more closely aligned than the west than would have been possible in the absense of their invasion. Even if you buy it as a reasonable desire and reasonble response to not getting their way, it has very, very obviously not gotten them what they wanted.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    > I only pointed out Russia’s behavior to highlight they’ve consistently worked towards an amicable settlement In what world is annexing territory you don't even control on the basis of a referendum you canceled before rescheduling due to losses on the battlefield working towards an amicable settlement? Since February 2022, I haven't seen much evidence that Russia has made any serious attempts to achieve an amicable settlement, much less consistently worked towards those goals.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      Russia was negotiating even after hostilities escalated — up until April 2022, when Boris Johnson scuttled the peace settlement. Since then, Russia has repeatedly offered to negotiate a settlement, but Ukraine refuses to negotiate. You can believe that’s a good idea, but indisputably it’s Ukraine who won’t negotiate.
Spooky23 3y ago
Thanks for the lesson, comrade.
rasz 3y ago
I want to come to your house, steal all of your stuff and pets, then burn it down. Lets negotiate! Lets find a happy middle ground, what do you say? Oh and by the way Im already living in your attic and regularly pee in your fridge.
toss1 3y ago
BULLSHIT No treaty with Putin has ever been honored. He is attempting to rebuild the Russian Empire and "peace" agreements are merely used to get the opponents to stand down while Russia prepares aggression. Putin and his govt have said that they have rights to the Baltics, Poland, Germany and more. They have said that Ukraine should not, indeed DOES NOT exist. The very existence of the idea of a free, and especially prosperous Ukraine is seen by them as an existential threat. And they may be right, as it certainly makes Russians wonder how those awful Ukrainians can live so well, having toilets and all. Read Winter Is Coming by Garry Kasparov. He's a former world chess champion, former candidate for President of Russia, and deeply involved in global democracy. He knows more than you or I ever will. No one intends to destroy Russia as a nation. It is the autocracies of Russia, Iran, NK, China, etc. who see that international law and order threaten their criminal way of life, and are working hard to destroy democracy. If you are so big on Russia, go live there and report back after a year (if you aren't conscripted and killed in one of their 'meat assaults' on Ukraine.

ganeshkrishnan 3y ago

[flagged]