4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- mopsi 2y ago
  > Putin has declared very recently he's open to dialogue Then he can pick up a phone, call Shoigu, and have a dialogue with him about issuing an order down the chain of command to withdraw troops from Ukraine if he is so keen on peace. But he doesn't do that because the goal is not peace, but concessions from Ukraine.
- racional 2y ago
  Putin has declared very recently he's open to dialogue, but as you may know ... His minimum requirement is permanent recognized sovereignty for the areas he's currently sitting on (and likely then some), as you may know. Do you think Ukraine should agree to these terms? A simple yes or no, please.

by ajuc 2y ago

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.

mopsi 2y ago
> Putin has declared very recently he's open to dialogue Then he can pick up a phone, call Shoigu, and have a dialogue with him about issuing an order down the chain of command to withdraw troops from Ukraine if he is so keen on peace. But he doesn't do that because the goal is not peace, but concessions from Ukraine.
racional 2y ago
Putin has declared very recently he's open to dialogue, but as you may know ... His minimum requirement is permanent recognized sovereignty for the areas he's currently sitting on (and likely then some), as you may know. Do you think Ukraine should agree to these terms? A simple yes or no, please.