|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
I'd think Zelenskyy would be a lot easier to deal with if we just gave Ukraine everything they wanted unless Russia pulled out
|
Germany1872 Posts
Trump does not care about a deal. Trump thinks he can yell at Ukraine and they will fold so that he has delivered on his win and get the nobel peace price. He does not care that Ukraine needs support, he does not even care for the us, other countries are only relevant if there leaders tell them how proud they are of their good boy for winning a golf tournament.
Even he can't just lie to his base that he created peace if their ain't peace. So next step if Ukraine believes they can go on without us help is to withdraw any support from Ukraine and claim they want the war and he is not helping them.
|
On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are.
You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians.
Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough.
|
On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough.
This feels like engagement bait at this point. There's no reason to go about it this way unless your purpose is to just maximize the number of replies you get.
|
On April 25 2025 07:03 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough. This feels like engagement bait at this point. There's no reason to go about it this way unless your purpose is to just maximize the number of replies you get.
Meh, I prefer quality over quantity personally. I don't know what you'd prefer, but I'd reply to more posts if I wanted more engagement.
I think it really bothers people to see what it's like for someone to agree with them and even support their goals, but also that isn't as emotionally invested in it as they are. So they react emotionally. That said, I love Ukrainians and believe they should be able to live their best lives. Every one of them that is denied that is a tragedy.
|
On April 25 2025 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 07:03 Dan HH wrote:On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough. This feels like engagement bait at this point. There's no reason to go about it this way unless your purpose is to just maximize the number of replies you get. Meh, I prefer quality over quantity personally. I don't know what you'd prefer, but I'd reply to more posts if I wanted more engagement. I think it really bothers people to see what it's like for someone to agree with them and even support their goals, but also that isn't as emotionally invested in it as they are. So they react emotionally. That said, I love Ukrainians and believe they should be able to live their best lives. Every one of them that is denied that is a tragedy.
I don't think many people are gonna believe that after you've been spouting Russian propaganda and shitting on Ukraine for years. ;-)
|
Who is denying Ukrainians their best lives?
I mean, you pretty much ignored my very long post in order to spew this bullshit, so maybe clarify on that?
Ukrainians were happy to mind their own business, there were, after the first invasion and an actual fake coup in Crimea legitimate attempts at peace in Minsk, however, one of the sides of this conflict kept violating ceasefire agreements and then declared that these agreements are dead when they invaded the other country and tried to seize their capital and assassinate it's democratically elected president, repeatedly.
Are the Ukrainians killing themselves, bombing themselves with ballistic missiles shoot into densely populated areas?
So much hand wringing over genocide in Gaza, no issues with daily murder of civilians, and Russians don't even have a dumb "human shield" excuse or the justification of "well they literally broke into our country and slaughtered a bunch of civilians so we have to pacify them".
If you have nothing to say except quoting Lex Friedman maybe you should stick to other threads.
|
On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough. Oh i don't get it. Explain it to me. Let's see how you contort yourself pretending you are not the "white moderate" in this thread. Also, do it, but don't take for granted my posture regarding Palestinians, which if you are able to read behind lines, it's very obvious.
|
Norway28584 Posts
On April 25 2025 16:06 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough. Oh i don't get it. Explain it to me. Let's see how you contort yourself pretending you are not the "white moderate" in this thread. Also, do it, but don't take for granted my posture regarding Palestinians, which if you are able to read behind lines, it's very obvious.
I'm guessing he's deliberately being the white moderate in an effort to make us understand how unacceptable the slow progress / lesser evil / halting of the worst without fighting for the good is to those who are in most immediate need of improvement. Then I'm guessing there's a parallel between: Ukraine = Palestine, Russia = Israel, Trump regarding Ukraine = Democrats regarding Palestine, and that we should be as appalled with how the democrats approach the issue of Israel/Palestine as we are with how Trump approaches Ukraine/Russia, and that if Trump's handling of the Ukraine/Russia issue is unacceptable to us, then we should also feel that way about how Democrats handle Israel/Palestine.
In a way I think it's a fair point to make but it still doesn't tackle the lesser evil dilemma of the two party system, because for that to be the case the democrats would be the current Trump-approach to the russian invasion of Ukraine while the Trump-approach would be like.. giving Russia the most advanced American weapons technology? not merely extorting Ukraine, and while I frequently employ the socratic method when teaching I don't think forums are a good medium.
|
On April 25 2025 16:06 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough. Oh i don't get it. Explain it to me. Let's see how you contort yourself pretending you are not the "white moderate" in this thread. Also, do it, but don't take for granted my posture regarding Palestinians, which if you are able to read behind lines, it's very obvious. Here, everyone's a revolutionary.
Doesn't matter that their democratically elected leader was violently removed. Doesn't matter it's been over a decade of their lives being objectively worse. Doesn't matter that Ukraine's "democracy score" is lower now than it was before their revolution. Doesn't matter that even after all this, failure is still quite likely, with the potential of reprisals and decades of it being worse than before their revolution.
It's just not socialist. That's the only objection everyone has to socialist revolution + Show Spoiler +1. There's opposition to socialism itself.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within it's own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
We've got an extremely bloody/violent revolution (spearheaded by their far-right) that's made Ukrainians lives worse for over a decade without a clear way out or any certainty the end won't be worse than what started it. Yet basically everyone here and generally in NA (save Republicans) is steadfastly committed to it. So much so, I'm pretty sure I've seen people here say they'd basically be willing to be sent as soldiers and Canada's Parliament mistakenly gave a literal Waffen-SS Nazi a standing ovation while calling him a hero + Show Spoiler +(I don't think Ukraine is all Nazis or that Putin cares about "denazifying" Ukraine btw.)
It's been bizarre af to witness.
|
|
|
On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them?
I just wanna point out that the Ukraine is not able to agree to this "deal" - which is great. It's the best - Literally. The Ukrainian constitution prohibits the cession of territories. See §2 and then §157 of the Ukrainian Constitution.
Also I wanna mention which I think i did before: All of Russia's negotiations in the context of Ukraine, which began before the start of the war in 2014 and continued almost continuously until Russia's invasion in 2022 and thus were de facto unilaterally ended by Russia, were never intended to bring about an agreement, but were and are pure distraction. If you look at the content and the demands and place the whole thing in the respective temporal context, this becomes obvious. There were a wide variety of discussion formats, a wide variety of participants, but Russia's approach remained more or less the same.
|
On April 25 2025 19:30 jodljodl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2025 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm struggling to see the scenario where Ukraine not taking the deal and being destroyed is the lesser evil to taking it and being able to continue fighting in the future?
I guess the idea is that if Ukraine refuses they can pray that Europe enacts a non-existent plan to shift to a wartime economy and saves them? I just wanna point out that the Ukraine is not able to agree to this "deal" - which is great. It's the best - Literally. The Ukrainian constitution prohibits the cession of territories. See §2 and then §157 of the Ukrainian Constitution.
Constitutions can be changed and often have to be changed when faced with extraordinary circumstances. There's gotta be lots of precedents of countries ceding territory despite it being unconstitutional beforehand. From what I understand, the "deal" also didn't require Ukraine itself to recognize Crimea as part of Russia.
This is not something they wouldn't be able to get over, the main hurdle is the complete lack of security guarantees.
On April 25 2025 19:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 16:06 Godwrath wrote:On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough. Oh i don't get it. Explain it to me. Let's see how you contort yourself pretending you are not the "white moderate" in this thread. Also, do it, but don't take for granted my posture regarding Palestinians, which if you are able to read behind lines, it's very obvious. Here, everyone's a revolutionary. Doesn't matter that their democratically elected leader was violently removed. Doesn't matter it's been over a decade of their lives being objectively worse. Doesn't matter that Ukraine's " democracy score" is lower now than it was before their revolution. Doesn't matter that even after all this, failure is still quite likely, with the potential of reprisals and decades of it being worse than before their revolution. It's just not socialist. That's the only objection everyone has to socialist revolution + Show Spoiler +1. There's opposition to socialism itself.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within it's own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse. that Ukraine has remotely satisfied. We've got an extremely bloody/violent revolution (spearheaded by their far-right) that's made Ukrainians lives worse for over a decade without a clear way out or any certainty the end won't be worse than what started it. Yet basically everyone here and generally in NA (save Republicans) is steadfastly committed to it. So much so, I'm pretty sure I've seen people here say they'd basically be willing to be sent as soldiers and Canada's Parliament mistakenly gave a literal Waffen-SS Nazi a standing ovation while calling him a hero + Show Spoiler +(I don't think Ukraine is all Nazis or that Putin cares about "denazifying" Ukraine btw.) . It's been bizarre af to witness.
It's not bizarre in the slightest, Jankisa gave you the tools to figure it out. Ukraine has 4 neighbours that were former USSR satellites and joined the EU, and 2 neighbours (excluding Russia) that didn't. They could observe, see and touch the results between those options.
Whereas what you've been wanting for the US is terra incognita, the great unknown. This isn't an argument against it, but it's crystal clear why there's no contradiction. You can't berate your friend for not eating unrecognized wild berries in the forest on the basis that other people like raspberries. Maybe they're good or even better, but other people wanting raspberries is irrelevant.
|
On April 25 2025 19:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 16:06 Godwrath wrote:On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough. Oh i don't get it. Explain it to me. Let's see how you contort yourself pretending you are not the "white moderate" in this thread. Also, do it, but don't take for granted my posture regarding Palestinians, which if you are able to read behind lines, it's very obvious. Here, everyone's a revolutionary. Doesn't matter that their democratically elected leader was violently removed. Doesn't matter it's been over a decade of their lives being objectively worse. Doesn't matter that Ukraine's " democracy score" is lower now than it was before their revolution. Doesn't matter that even after all this, failure is still quite likely, with the potential of reprisals and decades of it being worse than before their revolution. It's just not socialist. That's the only objection everyone has to socialist revolution + Show Spoiler +1. There's opposition to socialism itself.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within it's own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse. that Ukraine has remotely satisfied. We've got an extremely bloody/violent revolution (spearheaded by their far-right) that's made Ukrainians lives worse for over a decade without a clear way out or any certainty the end won't be worse than what started it. Yet basically everyone here and generally in NA (save Republicans) is steadfastly committed to it. So much so, I'm pretty sure I've seen people here say they'd basically be willing to be sent as soldiers and Canada's Parliament mistakenly gave a literal Waffen-SS Nazi a standing ovation while calling him a hero + Show Spoiler +(I don't think Ukraine is all Nazis or that Putin cares about "denazifying" Ukraine btw.) . It's been bizarre af to witness.
The revolution was neither extremly bloody, violent or anything of the sorts until Janukovic decided to shoot protesters. He then proceeded to flee to Russia and only then was officially removed from his position by the Ukrainian parlament.
Then Russia invaded eastern Ukraine with little green men.
10 years later Russia invaded the rest of the country.
Yes, life in Ukraine is now objectively worse, because Russia fucking invaded it and is now feeding its rural and minority population into the meat grinder.
I don't know how anyone still gives you the benefit of the doubt, for sure not because any sort of expertise or that you would have earned it somehow. Fuck off you vile kremlin troll.
|
Norway28584 Posts
I also think ceding Crimea is probably one of the easiest pills to swallow, and something Ukraine would be willing to do if the rest of the deal was palatable. Lack of security assurances and lack of self-determination would strike me as the absolute deal breakers.
Maybe I'm missing some but I feel the most contested areas are maybe the following?
1: The new border. Here, Crimea is the one Ukraine is most willing to cede, less willing to cede the other occupied territories.
2: Ability to join EU / NATO.
3: Security guarantees
4: Change of government to a pro-russian puppet
I think number 3 is an absolute necessity for Ukraine but it has to be more than an empty promise, and that requires them to at least join an EU with some type of mutual defense umbrella, if NATO is off the table. Number 4 is an absolute no. 1 is negotiable.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff like energy and food security and mineral rights but I think these are also more negotiable.
|
A brave sir GH comes in, spews some more propaganda, doesn't address anything written and leaves, wow.
Mentioning the democracy score when it went down the drain after the country was invaded on 4 fronts, elections were suspended (as par their constitution) and martial law declared, you are literally regurgitating JD Vances and Trump's talking points they get from Kremlin, jeez.
Their economy went south? Really, after one of their regions was seized and 2 more invaded, crazy coincidence.
What is bizarre to witness is that I've been reading these tired, shitty "arguments" that are being fed from Russia propaganda networks in 3 languages and they are always the same, however, you are a special case, even hardcore propagandists went away from the "denazification" bullshit, but you are shameless and unoriginal enough to keep at it, in true tankie style.
For others that I had these discussions with, I occasional have respect, they are either from countries under a lot of propaganda, don't have the benefit of education or are siloed in social media bubbles created to brainwash them, but you are obviously not, you are, at least that's what I read here a complete, unrepentant sycophant for Russian imperialism.
You like to think of yourself as some "revolutionary" above the fray, you think that you are some sort of a resistance hero when you are, very, very obviously just a sad, useful idiot for Putin and Trump.
Disgusting.
|
GreenHorizons, could you please clarify the following points to me?
On April 25 2025 19:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
Doesn't matter that their democratically elected leader was violently removed. [...] We've got an extremely bloody/violent revolution (spearheaded by their far-right) [...].
I guess you're referring to the Euromaidan (wiki article). How is it an extremely bloody/violent revolution? Especially when it comes to the protestors. How is it spearheaded by their far-right?
On April 25 2025 19:21 GreenHorizons wrote:[...] Doesn't matter that Ukraine's " democracy score" is lower now than it was before their revolution.[...].
Ukraine has been at war since the very first day of the transitional government that followed the Maidan Revolution. On February 26, 2014, the “Maidan Council” agreed on Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the candidate for the post of Prime Minister of an interim government. As a result, an interim government under Arseniy Yatsenyuk was formed on February 27, 2014. On the same day, Russia began the annexation of Crimea. At the same time, the "people's militias" became active in Donetsk and Luhansk.
In other words, Ukraine has been at war since the day the revolutionary forces took over the executive power.
I'm sure I don't have to explain to a smart and educated person like you that a war in your own country has other influences on the country, its citizens and democracy itself besides the war itself.
If you look at the indicators from which the index is derived. Namely electoral process and pluralism (12 indicators), functioning of government (14 indicators), political participation (9 indicators), political culture (8 indicators) and civil liberties (17 indicators). It then seems logical and easy to understand why the Economist's democracy index for Ukraine has fallen compared to 2013.
However, another important question arises in this context if you want to interpret the index in a meaningful way: does the index refer to the whole of Ukraine or only to the territories that are not occupied by Russia? I do not know.
On April 25 2025 19:21 GreenHorizons wrote:[...] Doesn't matter it's been over a decade of their lives being objectively worse. [...] that's [The revolution] made Ukrainians lives worse for over a decade without a clear way out or any certainty the end won't be worse than what started it.
How do you know that the lives of the Ukrainians have been worse for over a decade because of the revolution?
Let's assume there's a country which was invaded by another country over a decade ago. Since then live of the people has been objectively worse than before. There's also no certainty what will happen in the future because the war in the country is going on and on. The aggressor does not stop. Right before the country was attacked there was a revolution because lots of its citiziens wanted to start the EU admission program which the government did not. The revolution succeeded. Now you say the reason why the people do worse than before the revolution is the revolution itself and not the war.
How? Please explain to me how you come to this conclusion. Please explain this to one of the 100k+ dead Ukrainians. Please explain this to the Ukrainian family that lived with my parents because they had to flee their country without their dad, husband or son.
Edit:
On April 25 2025 20:43 Jankisa wrote:
A brave sir GH comes in, spews some more propaganda, doesn't address anything written and leaves, wow.
Mentioning the democracy score when it went down the drain after the country was invaded on 4 fronts, elections were suspended (as par their constitution) and martial law declared, you are literally regurgitating JD Vances and Trump's talking points they get from Kremlin, jeez.
Their economy went south? Really, after one of their regions was seized and 2 more invaded, crazy coincidence.
What is bizarre to witness is that I've been reading these tired, shitty "arguments" that are being fed from Russia propaganda networks in 3 languages and they are always the same, however, you are a special case, even hardcore propagandists went away from the "denazification" bullshit, but you are shameless and unoriginal enough to keep at it, in true tankie style.
For others that I had these discussions with, I occasional have respect, they are either from countries under a lot of propaganda, don't have the benefit of education or are siloed in social media bubbles created to brainwash them, but you are obviously not, you are, at least that's what I read here a complete, unrepentant sycophant for Russian imperialism.
You like to think of yourself as some "revolutionary" above the fray, you think that you are some sort of a resistance hero when you are, very, very obviously just a sad, useful idiot for Putin and Trump.
Disgusting.
Very good work, sir or lady  I agree wholeheartedly
|
I think that Zelneskyy and Ukrainians in general are projecting a hard stance on Crimea in order to improve their negotiating position, and it makes sense.
The only risk there is "antagonizing Trump" but it's not like that can get any worse, he's clearly playing for the other team anyway so it makes no sense to try to appease him further.
I think in previous statements Zelenskyy mentioned that NATO isn't a must, and in my opinion the value of NATO without US (which I believe is leaving the organization within 2 years) is not that important, if they join EU they are basically getting NATO minus USA so it's kind of the same.
It's very irksome to me that instead of these negotiations being led by a neutral, third party that has no skin in the game they are being led by what is now, at least in it's actions and statements a mafia state in the US, Trump is retroactively trying to charge a protection racket on Ukraine for supplying the weapons previously, so I think that Ukraine should just ignore this, on paper agree to whatever fantasy Americans write up while never actually intending to sign it, when, inevitably Russia doesn't agree (because their maximalist goals are beyond even what Trump can sell as a good deal) US can walk away and actual negotiations can begin.
There, I believe Crimea will have to be forfeit, I believe that Ukraine should focus on trying to swap occupied parts of Russia, Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk as well as Mariupol and Melitopol for what Russians control in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.
That is not great for Ukraine, but if they actually get security guarantees and deny Russia a land bridge to Crimea I think that is a relatively realpolitik solution that can leave both sides unhappy and end the war.
|
On April 25 2025 20:11 Dan HH wrote:
Constitutions can be changed and often have to be changed when faced with extraordinary circumstances. There's gotta be lots of precedents of countries ceding territory despite it being unconstitutional beforehand. From what I understand, the "deal" also didn't require Ukraine itself to recognize Crimea as part of Russia.
This is not something they wouldn't be able to get over, the main hurdle is the complete lack of security guarantees.
I didn't check any historic examples, I totally get what you're saying and yes, maybe there's a workaround. But §157 refers to war times and the territory specifically. No changes of the constitution in wartimes or when it comes to territory. I don't know if that's a common thing in constitutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
