3 ms·

After the 2014 annexation of Krimea, Ukraine could have chosen to "appease" Russia, but it didn't. So I think your argument is backwards: if you wanted to preve

by brabel 2y ago

After the 2014 annexation of Krimea, Ukraine could have chosen to "appease" Russia, but it didn't. So I think your argument is backwards: if you wanted to prevent the invasion of 2022, you should've solved the 2014 crisis diplomatically, the invasion was a result of a failure in doing so. I'm afraid that failing to solve the current situation diplomatically will actually end up with a much larger portion of pre-2014 Ukraine territory never being returned to Ukraine (though IMHO there's very little chance Ukraine will disappear completely, or even lose Kyiv, as Russians have not shown much interest in extending the occupied regions so much in the last few months beyond Donbas and Luhansk - which they seem on a path to completely take over soon). Here's an example that's applicable to the current situation, I believe, where a Peace Deal was achieved and brought permanent peace: - Finland, 13th of March 1940 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War) Very similar situation to today. The peace deal involved ceding quite a lot of land to the USSR, more than USSR initially bargained for (though Finland is still seen as having exited that conflict very positively today). The peace after that has basically lasted to this day and Finland is not at a hugely disadvantaged position because of the losses it suffered by signing that peace deal. There are many example of such deals in history, most wars actually ended up with similar deals. Only very few wars ended up with "complete victory" by one side, like WWII (though people seem to want every war now to end like that, forgetting just how extremely heavy the price was in that occasion, for both sides - or actually all the various sides involved).

racional 2y ago
If you wanted to prevent the invasion of 2022, you should've solved the 2014 crisis diplomatically, the invasion was a result of a failure in doing so. The invasion started in 2014, not 2022. There was no "diplomatic crisis" at the time. It was an outright, unprovoked invasion from the very start. The same invasion that has continued to the present day. Your reading of the Winter War is just as backwards. But if you can't get 2014 even remotely correct there's no reason to dissect the footnotes of 1940.
- brabel 2y ago
  > There was no "diplomatic crisis" at the time You ignorance on the matter could be cured by reading about what caused the 2014 Revolution, if you're actually interested in learning instead of throwing insults. The whole affair was a diplomatic crisis. Ukraine had a EU deal on one side, a Russian deal on the other. The president at the time went with the Russian deal. The population revolted. Another deal was made with the mediation of the EU, so that there would be elections at the end of the year. That made people even more pissed off, there was some violence and finally the elected president was removed. Russia saw Ukraine tearing up the deal which had the support of the EU as a dangerous provocation. The USA openly supported tearing up the EU-supported deal! It was a mess. If you don't understand that this is a diplomatic crisis, you really don't have enough knowledge to intelligently discuss anything after that.
  - racional 2y ago
    I know all about 2014, from people who were there. There was no "crisis" that provided any rational reason for Russia to intervene with force (either at the time, or after Ukraine's failure to "solve" it in subsequent years) is what I obviously meant.
ajuc 2y ago
> After the 2014 annexation of Krimea, Ukraine could have chosen to "appease" Russia, but it didn't. It literally did. Zelenski was considered the appeasement president and he tried to appease russia at the start of his term by starting the talks on some long-term settlement about which territory belongs to whom. Putin responded by another invasion as soon as pandemic ended. Russia does not want Ukraine to lose some territory and enter EU and NATO. It wants Ukraine to be kept in eternal war that thaws and is frozen as needed, so Ukraine cannot enter EU nor NATO forever. The problem from Russian POV is that Ukraine is considered "Russia but more provincial", and if Ukraine has wealthy, democratic state - Russians will ask "why can't we?". Hence for Putin and the rest of russian elites - Ukraine can't enter EU. The solution isn't to let Russia dictate what other countries can and cannot do. The solution is to stop Russia once and for all. Each next war will be more expansive in lives and money. If you let Russia conquer Ukraine - you will have Russia with 30 million more people, all the soldiers that Ukraine trained, all the weapons that survive - going to Baltic states next. Congratulations. Very "pragmatic" and "realpolitik".
- brabel 2y ago
  I would love to discuss this topic with you, but unfortunately you seem to misunderstand every single point you've brought up in your response :( . Perhaps I can help clarify a few things so that an actual discussion can be started: > Zelenski was considered the appeasement president... Zelenski was voted president several years after 2014, in 2019. If anyone "appeased" Russia, it was the guy appointed interim prime minister (with USA support) after the revolution, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Even though Zelensky was never very vocal in opposition to Russia during his early mandate, he did sign, in March 2021, a "strategy for de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.". You can read more about that from Ukrainin media: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-enacts-strategy-for-deoccupation-and-reintegration-of-crimea.html https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-e... Zelenskyy's also was in Brussels in June 2019 to talk with NATO officials. That was not conductive to peaceful negotiations with Russia. He did try to find a peaceful resolution for the conflict in Donbas, and almost reached a deal with Putin after they met face to face (all they had to do was accept local elections results and the Russians were going to withdraw) but was stopped by his own government supporters who even accused him of "playing in the hands of Putin" (a familiar accusation these days). They wanted a hardline on Russia, and we all know what that has led to. Now, I absolutely agree that right before the invasion, Zelensky made an effort to ease the tensions as the invasion was imminent. But by then, it was too little, too late. > It wants Ukraine to be kept in eternal war that thaws and is frozen as needed, so Ukraine cannot enter EU nor NATO forever. There's no basis on reality with that sort of rhetoric. Putin has been open to peace deal negotiations on multiple occasions, a deal was almost reached in Belarus just a couple of months into the conflict (it was the West who backed off those discussions). Putin has declared very recently he's open to dialogue, but as you may know, Zelensky has declared that no discussion will be had while Putin is in office. How can you defend such an argument given those facts?!? It really boggles my mind people say things like this with a straight face. > The solution is to stop Russia once and for all. There's only one way to do that: nuclear war. Because if you try to invade Russia to "stop them once and for all", you know all too well that's what you'll get. I hope you're not seriously advocating for that... if you are, I sincerely hope that you'll remember that you were on the wrong side of history when your family and friends, perhaps you yourself, suffer the consequences of such callous actions... but I do believe most people are not that murder-inclined, so this will not come to ever become a reality.

by brabel 2y ago

racional 2y ago

If you wanted to prevent the invasion of 2022, you should've solved the 2014 crisis diplomatically, the invasion was a result of a failure in doing so. The invasion started in 2014, not 2022. There was no "diplomatic crisis" at the time. It was an outright, unprovoked invasion from the very start. The same invasion that has continued to the present day. Your reading of the Winter War is just as backwards. But if you can't get 2014 even remotely correct there's no reason to dissect the footnotes of 1940.

brabel 2y ago
> There was no "diplomatic crisis" at the time You ignorance on the matter could be cured by reading about what caused the 2014 Revolution, if you're actually interested in learning instead of throwing insults. The whole affair was a diplomatic crisis. Ukraine had a EU deal on one side, a Russian deal on the other. The president at the time went with the Russian deal. The population revolted. Another deal was made with the mediation of the EU, so that there would be elections at the end of the year. That made people even more pissed off, there was some violence and finally the elected president was removed. Russia saw Ukraine tearing up the deal which had the support of the EU as a dangerous provocation. The USA openly supported tearing up the EU-supported deal! It was a mess. If you don't understand that this is a diplomatic crisis, you really don't have enough knowledge to intelligently discuss anything after that.
- racional 2y ago
  I know all about 2014, from people who were there. There was no "crisis" that provided any rational reason for Russia to intervene with force (either at the time, or after Ukraine's failure to "solve" it in subsequent years) is what I obviously meant.

ajuc 2y ago

> After the 2014 annexation of Krimea, Ukraine could have chosen to "appease" Russia, but it didn't. It literally did. Zelenski was considered the appeasement president and he tried to appease russia at the start of his term by starting the talks on some long-term settlement about which territory belongs to whom. Putin responded by another invasion as soon as pandemic ended. Russia does not want Ukraine to lose some territory and enter EU and NATO. It wants Ukraine to be kept in eternal war that thaws and is frozen as needed, so Ukraine cannot enter EU nor NATO forever. The problem from Russian POV is that Ukraine is considered "Russia but more provincial", and if Ukraine has wealthy, democratic state - Russians will ask "why can't we?". Hence for Putin and the rest of russian elites - Ukraine can't enter EU. The solution isn't to let Russia dictate what other countries can and cannot do. The solution is to stop Russia once and for all. Each next war will be more expansive in lives and money. If you let Russia conquer Ukraine - you will have Russia with 30 million more people, all the soldiers that Ukraine trained, all the weapons that survive - going to Baltic states next. Congratulations. Very "pragmatic" and "realpolitik".

brabel 2y ago
I would love to discuss this topic with you, but unfortunately you seem to misunderstand every single point you've brought up in your response :( . Perhaps I can help clarify a few things so that an actual discussion can be started: > Zelenski was considered the appeasement president... Zelenski was voted president several years after 2014, in 2019. If anyone "appeased" Russia, it was the guy appointed interim prime minister (with USA support) after the revolution, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Even though Zelensky was never very vocal in opposition to Russia during his early mandate, he did sign, in March 2021, a "strategy for de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.". You can read more about that from Ukrainin media: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-enacts-strategy-for-deoccupation-and-reintegration-of-crimea.html https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-e... Zelenskyy's also was in Brussels in June 2019 to talk with NATO officials. That was not conductive to peaceful negotiations with Russia. He did try to find a peaceful resolution for the conflict in Donbas, and almost reached a deal with Putin after they met face to face (all they had to do was accept local elections results and the Russians were going to withdraw) but was stopped by his own government supporters who even accused him of "playing in the hands of Putin" (a familiar accusation these days). They wanted a hardline on Russia, and we all know what that has led to. Now, I absolutely agree that right before the invasion, Zelensky made an effort to ease the tensions as the invasion was imminent. But by then, it was too little, too late. > It wants Ukraine to be kept in eternal war that thaws and is frozen as needed, so Ukraine cannot enter EU nor NATO forever. There's no basis on reality with that sort of rhetoric. Putin has been open to peace deal negotiations on multiple occasions, a deal was almost reached in Belarus just a couple of months into the conflict (it was the West who backed off those discussions). Putin has declared very recently he's open to dialogue, but as you may know, Zelensky has declared that no discussion will be had while Putin is in office. How can you defend such an argument given those facts?!? It really boggles my mind people say things like this with a straight face. > The solution is to stop Russia once and for all. There's only one way to do that: nuclear war. Because if you try to invade Russia to "stop them once and for all", you know all too well that's what you'll get. I hope you're not seriously advocating for that... if you are, I sincerely hope that you'll remember that you were on the wrong side of history when your family and friends, perhaps you yourself, suffer the consequences of such callous actions... but I do believe most people are not that murder-inclined, so this will not come to ever become a reality.