How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours
How Trump backed away from promising to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours
Pretty pathetic because Putin just offered up an easter cease fire with no conditions and all we have to do to put a stop to this is turn off the bullet spigot and tell Ukraine it's time to negotiate or no more aid.
(which I feel like you will)
Well then there is no point in discussing this.
Then no one will be firing on you.
No they will just go back to shelling civilians in Donbas as they have been doing for the past 11 years and is the reason this is happening in the first place.
Hey, quick question: Why did Russia swear before the invasion that they were not going to invade Ukraine, and any reports of that were just Western lies?
Why did they change the goal from "denazification and demilitarization" to "we need to keep all this extra land on the border because it's ours now and we'll keep killing people until someone gives up and lets us have it"?
The Russian line is always that Ukraine is lying, Russia is telling the truth, but there are important areas where you don't even have to trust anybody to see that Russia was lying about something crucially important. What's up with that?
I agree, if Russia was serious about denazification they would have come in to stop the pogroms against roma people and eastern Ukrainians much sooner. Trust me I have no love for the man, I just understand that the encroachment of NATO encirclement crossed SEVERAL red lines that the US had also promised not to cross already. Contrary to liberal beliefs the entire universe did not pop into existence last thursday.
Oh, other question: Is Russia's current set of actions more likely to produce the result:
?
Since you're right that Russia was totally just pushing back NATO encirclement, I feel like they must have achieved goal #1. Also their military has been showing it's a hell of a force to be reckoned with. Obviously.
NATO has never been a "defensive alliance" its entire formation and purpose was to destroy communist movements and stifle their progress, also NATO was literally founded with a bunch of Nazis in high positions of power.
Yeah. But Russia isn’t communist though. NATO is just for stifling dissent from the US hegemony there’s no ideology beyond that.
I think that's more an issue of the organization having achieved its original goal of destroying the Soviet Union but institutions like to continue to exist so they had to find another big bad to focus on.
Sounds good. Which result is this more likely to produce? I feel like maybe you meant to respond to someone else's message, since you missed the question I asked in mine.
Because I don't deal in useless hypotheticals based on flawed analysis. I deal in reality. You should try it instead of being a smug asshole.
I deal in reality
Clearly
Where can I find a set of these massive blinders you wear?
Hey, quick question: What happened when the US congress tripped over its own dick as it is wont to do and turned off the bullet spigot for 8-10 months? Did Ukraine stop fighting and say "Oh you're right you can have all our land in the east and please accept our apologies if you want to take some more go right ahead?" I feel like they must have done that, since the US is the one insisting that they have to shoot back even though they really don't want to (and why would anyone?). But I can't remember it happening.
even though they really don't want
Correct, majority of civilians don't want to keep fighting a pointless and unwinnable conflict. It is mostly forced conscription by their Nazi government that the US props up to continue feeding them into the meat grinder.
Also the people in the east have a right to self determination and if they would rather be under Putin's thumb than the thumb of the Azov aligned Ukrainian government that is their prerogative and it is showing your western chauvinism that you don't clearly give a fuck about them.
Sounds good. What happened when they turned off the bullet spigot? I feel like maybe you meant to respond to someone else's message here, since you missed the question I asked in mine.
You say "negotiate", but mean "surrender". Surrender land, people, rights...
It's funny it's up to Ukraine to stop the war. The one being attacked. The one attacking can't do anything to stop itself. Just not possible. It's the fault of the small country and the one aiding. Of course there would be no war if they had managed to conquer it all in three days, but this belligerent Ukrainians didn't want to, so there's war. "It's only rape because you resist" mentality there.
And BTW, they are open to negotiate. Just not with a knife to the neck.
It's funny it's up to Ukraine to stop the war.
What am I supposed to do about Russia's side? I can only pressure my own government. If my government keeps giving Ukraine weapons and stopping peace talks, more Ukrainians and Russians will die in a meaningless war. It's not fair to Ukrainians to lose part of the territory of their nation state because Russia invaded it, sure, but it's also not fair to anyone that NATO wants to do brinkmanship against Russia and decided to fight a proxy war through Ukrainians. I don't see how any of the points you're bringing up are supposed to make anyone feel like peace in Ukraine is a bad thing.
Ohh I see. Let's give Russia a piece, and they will stop for good. What about Crimea? Ups, they already took that and weren't satiated. I guess we have to give all. Seems the humane thing to do.
I know you're just lying to gain points, but I don't think anybody would fall for that.
I never said they'd stop for good. They'll keep opposing NATO as long as NATO is hostile to Russia, obviously. If you want to think of Russia like they're just evil people who want more power or whatever Harry Potter model of the world then I'm sure that sounds really scary, but if you drop the good guys vs bad guys view of the world you'd understand that it's not in anybody except imperialist's interest for wars to keep going infinitely.
Wow, you drop the act very quick.
I agree with you it's in nobodies interest to keep the wars going. But even you know Russia will attack again, and only want to have a weaker opponent later. It's indeed on the interest of the imperialist aggressor that there's no resistance.
It's tiresome that non argument that the only way to stop is for Ukraine to surrender. That they are the ones that want war for defending. "I can only tell my country" my ass. You're telling your opinion on the internet. I can tell Putin to go die on a trench if he wants war so much.
I love how you say this isn't good vs evil, then basically say that Russia is justified because NATO is evil. So attack a non NATO country who they had previously attacked because that's what good ones do.
Fucking hell the absolute degeneracy to even make this shit up.
"Previously attacked" by honoring a referendum almost universally supported by the people in Crimea?
But I suppose you know better than the people that actually live there? This is the chauvinism we are calling you out on.
It's indeed on the interest of the imperialist aggressor that there's no resistance.
What imperialist? What is imperialist about Russia?
It's tiresome that non argument that the only way to stop is for Ukraine to surrender.
Are you under the impression that the war could end any other way? How is Ukraine going to turn it around and make Putin surrender when now they depend on Europe for arms and Europe has even less capacity to sustain Ukraine than the US did? They were steadily losing with the US fully supporting them.
I can tell Putin to go die on a trench if he wants war so much.
Yeah, I agree. No question there.
I love how you say this isn't good vs evil, then basically say that Russia is justified because NATO is evil.
I never even said Russia was justified, I just explained the reason why they invaded. Like, we can at least agree that Russia didn't just invade for no reason, right? They may be justified or not, I don't know what your ethical framework is. I don't think it matters whether any of us thinks it's moral or not because nation states are amoral and unfeeling entities. The only thing that matters is power and who wields it; the power to stop Russian aggression is not held by the citizens of NATO countries, that's my point. The power to stop NATO aggression, on the other hand, does fall on those of us who live within the NATO world (I mean, if you believe liberal democracy works, which it objectively doesn't but that's another discussion). So basically what I'm saying is that Russia won't stop the war on NATO's terms because Russia obviously will win by attrition anyway (at the cost of even more slaughter), so it's ridiculous to suggest that Ukrainians should keep throwing themselves in the meat grinder for no other reason than to weaken Russia, a military objective that only matters to the ruling class of NATO countries. They should take the peace deal, put the guns down and go home.
I never said they’d stop for good.
Sounds like they need to be in the fucking ground, then.
Maybe in the Hague. I don't entirely think it's the fault of the average Russian solider, although I'm not sure what else could be done if they're coming over to kill a bunch of people other than to kill them first. But yes, the people who are planning not to stop for good can certainly get stopped in other ways than them one day deciding they're open to the idea.
They’ll keep opposing NATO
No they won't. They're terrified of opposing NATO, which is why they react with the same "don't you dare call the cops" mentality/reaction as an abusive husband does, whenever they think someone in their orbit might be thinking of getting protection from NATO.
Of course, the whole thing is stupidly counterproductive if the goal was for their neighbors to stay uninvolved with NATO. The sum result of their actions in Ukraine is that any country with half a brain (and uncorrupted leaders) anywhere near them is looking around for any and all security guarantees they could get from anyone. Which means NATO.
What am I supposed to do about Russia’s side?
Tell the truth? Be open to talking to people who disagree with you, and be honest about where you got your own arguments, so that we can have a fact-based discussion? Nobody here is going to be in control of whether the war continues or not. We're just talking about what happens, and to me it is offensive when someone comes in with a wild skewed narrative that serves the invader and oppressor. That doesn't mean I think me arguing back is going to "do" anything, it's just how I operate.
If my government keeps giving Ukraine weapons and stopping peace talks
They are absolutely not doing that. You may sincerely think that Russia somehow "wants peace" and those dastardly people-who-got-invaded are preventing them from packing their shit and going back across the border. But I think you at least owe it to other people in the comments here to have a real discussion about why you think the US is sabotaging peace talks, and hear out their reasons why they say they are absolutely not doing that.
“It’s only rape because you resist” mentality there.
Jesus Christ, this is darkly accurate. I stole this for use up above here.
