|
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. |
On April 27 2025 04:42 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2025 23:10 Billyboy wrote:On April 26 2025 16:07 zeo wrote:On April 26 2025 01:46 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2025 00:39 Jankisa wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
There is a very big difference between someone just talking about how terrible this is and how Ukrainians are suffering and it should stop while advocating for more help to Ukraine and literally repeating Russian propaganda in the form of: "The west orchestrated Maidan", "Maidan was led by nazis and it was very violent and bloody", "Candians had a Ukrainian nazi in the parliament and clapped for them" and many more that were spewed out over the last few pages. I'm not sure how you are reading that but I've seen enough of this horrid bullshit that I have 0 patience for it and whoever is peddling it, 11 years into this to go around and spread lies and interpret data without taking into consideration at any point that all of this was caused by Russia is vile. I agree with everything you said. In addition I'll add that the revolution has been followed by multiple democratic elections. The Ukrainian government is not the revolutionary government, it did not come to power through a revolution, deposing a democratically elected government. The revolution has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the current government which is the democratically elected government of Ukraine. I guess you could also argue that the Iranian Revolution had no effect on the subsequent governments that came to power there through elections and that the current government has nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution. The last few American Presidents had NOTHING to do with the American Revolution, zilch, nada. The entire system of government would be exactly the same today if the Revolution never happened. I mean, Soviet heads of state after Lenin didn't come to power in revolutions right? That would be crazy to assume the political system somehow changed after the October Revolution. Its almost as if cause and effect and historical context are real terms with actual meaning. Of course the violent and unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government by hardline nationalists would have no bearing on any future elections. Only the corrupt eurocentrics, bought and paid for by foreign governments intent on using Ukraine like a battering ram had executive power. The hardline nationalists only had infinite soft power and free reign to do as they pleased in the country. So what if the banned the largest political parties opposed to them? Banned any media opposed to them or that looked into corruption? Banned and violently suppressed any protests against them? Banned languages and made sweeping education reforms aimed at homogenizing the political landscape? Eighty percent of non-state owned media being on the payroll of one foreign country and 60% of media just stops working if funding is cut has absolutely no bearing on the political landscape and elections. NONE. I mean, whats the worst that can happen? Sorry, but in your media sphere is Iran having democratic elections? What do you think the other parties platforms are? The point made in that post wasn't about free elections, rather, that the political systems of countries that undergo revolutions are fundamentally changed and influenced by them after they happen. But you knew that was the point didn't you? Show nested quote +Also, doesn't your narrative on Ukraine breakdown when unlike what the Russian narrative said, when basically no one welcomed Russian forces and everyone else fought against them? If yours was true when the big army of freedom came wouldn't they have all joined? You're right, no civilians live in the areas not controlled by the Kiev government.
That Countries go through big changes after a revolution is known by all, it is in the definition of the word. You missed the point that if the people of Ukraine wanted a Russian puppet back they could have voted for him. I was wondering if you thought that was the case in Iran, because otherwise your analogy makes no sense, but it turns out. it just made no sense.
And then again you missed the point, of course there are civilians, many who have now lost their freedom. Of course I'm aware and it is very sad. My point was I don't see how you still believe the Russian narrative, when the narrative was that Ukrainians were going to join with them, welcome them, and help them over throw the evil western dictator, and none of that happened.
|
On April 27 2025 02:16 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2025 23:10 Billyboy wrote:On April 26 2025 16:07 zeo wrote:On April 26 2025 01:46 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2025 00:39 Jankisa wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
There is a very big difference between someone just talking about how terrible this is and how Ukrainians are suffering and it should stop while advocating for more help to Ukraine and literally repeating Russian propaganda in the form of: "The west orchestrated Maidan", "Maidan was led by nazis and it was very violent and bloody", "Candians had a Ukrainian nazi in the parliament and clapped for them" and many more that were spewed out over the last few pages. I'm not sure how you are reading that but I've seen enough of this horrid bullshit that I have 0 patience for it and whoever is peddling it, 11 years into this to go around and spread lies and interpret data without taking into consideration at any point that all of this was caused by Russia is vile. I agree with everything you said. In addition I'll add that the revolution has been followed by multiple democratic elections. The Ukrainian government is not the revolutionary government, it did not come to power through a revolution, deposing a democratically elected government. The revolution has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the current government which is the democratically elected government of Ukraine. I guess you could also argue that the Iranian Revolution had no effect on the subsequent governments that came to power there through elections and that the current government has nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution. The last few American Presidents had NOTHING to do with the American Revolution, zilch, nada. The entire system of government would be exactly the same today if the Revolution never happened. I mean, Soviet heads of state after Lenin didn't come to power in revolutions right? That would be crazy to assume the political system somehow changed after the October Revolution. Its almost as if cause and effect and historical context are real terms with actual meaning. Of course the violent and unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government by hardline nationalists would have no bearing on any future elections. Only the corrupt eurocentrics, bought and paid for by foreign governments intent on using Ukraine like a battering ram had executive power. The hardline nationalists only had infinite soft power and free reign to do as they pleased in the country. So what if the banned the largest political parties opposed to them? Banned any media opposed to them or that looked into corruption? Banned and violently suppressed any protests against them? Banned languages and made sweeping education reforms aimed at homogenizing the political landscape? Eighty percent of non-state owned media being on the payroll of one foreign country and 60% of media just stops working if funding is cut has absolutely no bearing on the political landscape and elections. NONE. I mean, whats the worst that can happen? Sorry, but in your media sphere is Iran having democratic elections? What do you think the other parties platforms are? Also, doesn't your narrative on Ukraine breakdown when unlike what the Russian narrative said, when basically no one welcomed Russian forces and everyone else fought against them? If yours was true when the big army of freedom came wouldn't they have all joined? Based on my discussions with Iranian people they are in a theocratic dictatorship. While most of the country is not religious. So I assume any free election would get them kicked out instantly.
Me as well, I was just wondering if Zeo believed something different, because his version of the world is very different from mine. And given that Iran and Russia are allies I thought maybe he thought they were some democracy fighting against evil as well. Turned out he just totally missed the arguments being made.
|
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it.
Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda.
Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda.
I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs.
|
On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable.
Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing?
|
On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing?
Zelensky should have done a deal months ago, now they have lost control of the entire Kursk region they've lost whatever tiny bargaining chip they had.The longer it goes the worse it gets for Ukraine.
And seeing more and more European leaders talking up the prospect of war, World War III.No appetite in the European population for that.UK Govt couldn't even manage to mandate the covid jab for NHS workers, had to pull out at the last minute due to too many refuseniks - The idea that kids or their parents are going to accept conscription and fight for Starmer or Macron is just so laughable.
|
On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? "Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario.
If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority. ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option.
It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
|
On April 27 2025 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? "Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario. If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians Show nested quote +Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority. ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option. It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
You either deliberately misrepresents statistics or are so caught up in your bubble that you cannot separate facts from fiction anymore.
It specifically mentioned in the poll that out of those those 52% who favoured a negotiated ending to the war, only around half of them were willing to make ANY territorial concessions. To put that into slightly different numbers that perhaps even you can understand:
9% Declined to comment
38% Told Russia to fuck off
20% Were in favour of a peace deal but with no territorial concession.
27% Were in favour of a peace deal with at least some territorial concessions, though it's not specified which exactly.
5% Were in favour of a peace deal but did not specify what they had in mind.
Further polls, like the National Survey of Ukraine from the same period, paints an entirely different picture.
56% believed that Ukraine will definitely win the war
32% believed that Ukraine will likely win the war.
24% favoured a peace deal with the current borders along the existing frontline
71% said that they want to recapture all territories of the 1991 border
An even bigger percentage of Ukrainians favoured recapturing the 2022 borders when offered that choice instead of the 1991 borders (73%).
You can find those polls here:
https://www.iri.org/resources/national-survey-of-ukraine-sept-oct-2024/
A lot of the misinformation you are peddling has been debunked already. Favouring a negotiated peace but then not making any concessions in a peace deal is not a peace deal, it's straight up winning the war.
And that is without all the other baggage ignored.
Even IF Ukraine was willing to make territorial concessions and it had a broad support of the public, they wouldn't then also reject any security guarantees. That is just not going to happen, not matter how much you want to believe it.
The positions are mutually exclusive.
Russia wants to end the Ukrainian state and identity. Russification.
Ukraine wants to continue as a nation and as a people.
Until one side moves from their fundamental war goal, you cannot negotiate anything. And so the war will continue until one of the two sides collapses and cannot continue the war anymore.
With even moderate Western support and excluding the US entirely, Ukraine is on pace to outlast Russia. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow for the tankies, but that is the material situation. Russia is making small gains with a rate of attrition that is not sustainable at the current rate past 2025, and probably not past 2026 at even a reduced rate. The only way for Russia to achieve their war goal is through eroding western support and hoping that this is enough to cause a collapse in Ukraine before they suffer that fate.
None of what you say, either here or in any other political thread, holds any kind of meaning or moral value as long as you are standing on the wrong side of the line - in support of the Russian side. I think it's a frankly pathetic position to take.
|
On April 27 2025 12:33 Nezgar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? "Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario. If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority. ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option. It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally. You either deliberately misrepresents statistics or are so caught up in your bubble that you cannot separate facts from fiction anymore. It specifically mentioned in the poll that out of those those 52% who favoured a negotiated ending to the war, only around half of them were willing to make ANY territorial concessions. To put that into slightly different numbers that perhaps even you can understand: 9% Declined to comment 38% Told Russia to fuck off 20% Were in favour of a peace deal but with no territorial concession. 27% Were in favour of a peace deal with at least some territorial concessions, though it's not specified which exactly. 5% Were in favour of a peace deal but did not specify what they had in mind. + Show Spoiler +Further polls, like the National Survey of Ukraine from the same period, paints an entirely different picture. 56% believed that Ukraine will definitely win the war 32% believed that Ukraine will likely win the war. 24% favoured a peace deal with the current borders along the existing frontline 71% said that they want to recapture all territories of the 1991 border An even bigger percentage of Ukrainians favoured recapturing the 2022 borders when offered that choice instead of the 1991 borders (73%). You can find those polls here: https://www.iri.org/resources/national-survey-of-ukraine-sept-oct-2024/A lot of the misinformation you are peddling has been debunked already. Favouring a negotiated peace but then not making any concessions in a peace deal is not a peace deal, it's straight up winning the war. And that is without all the other baggage ignored. Even IF Ukraine was willing to make territorial concessions and it had a broad support of the public, they wouldn't then also reject any security guarantees. That is just not going to happen, not matter how much you want to believe it. The positions are mutually exclusive. Russia wants to end the Ukrainian state and identity. Russification. Ukraine wants to continue as a nation and as a people. Until one side moves from their fundamental war goal, you cannot negotiate anything. And so the war will continue until one of the two sides collapses and cannot continue the war anymore. With even moderate Western support and excluding the US entirely, Ukraine is on pace to outlast Russia. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow for the tankies, but that is the material situation. Russia is making small gains with a rate of attrition that is not sustainable at the current rate past 2025, and probably not past 2026 at even a reduced rate. The only way for Russia to achieve their war goal is through eroding western support and hoping that this is enough to cause a collapse in Ukraine before they suffer that fate. None of what you say, either here or in any other political thread, holds any kind of meaning or moral value as long as you are standing on the wrong side of the line - in support of the Russian side. I think it's a frankly pathetic position to take . This is more emotional lashing out, but all I'm saying that you're disagreeing with there is that more Ukrainians are going in the "make a deal" direction. Though it should be noted it's not just more Ukrainians December polling by YouGov in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the UK found public desire to stand by Ukraine until victory – even if that meant prolonging the war – had slumped in all seven countries over the past 12 months.
Support for an alternative resolution to the conflict – a negotiated end to the fighting, even if that left Russia in control of parts of Ukraine – had increased in every country, the survey found
Ukrainians can (and very well might) keep fighting, regardless of how much western support they're getting (or not getting) a year or so from now, but they aren't going to be as successful at defending themselves as they have been if it's noticeably less military support specifically (which it increasingly looks like will be the case).
This dynamic will be exacerbated if/when Trump further helps Russia sustain their efforts by relaxing sanctions on them.
|
On April 27 2025 04:26 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 04:16 pmp10 wrote:On April 25 2025 21:04 Jankisa wrote:
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.
Oh, but it can definitely get worse. US forces will be leaving Europe sooner or later and Trump (if annoyed enough) is just the type that might just accelerate the process by decades. There is a good argument to be made that it's exactly the Russian play in agreeing to these absurd conditions. Why is that worse in the context of this war? If they already stopped sharing the intel that positioning is gaining, what does Ukraine gain by the US having bases in Germany? It is likely bad for the other European nations but don't see why it matters for Ukraine unless it slows European aid, which there is no reason it should.
Europe will need at least a decade to build some defense capabilities and that's money and effort that won't be including Ukraine. That and the intel sharing was resumed some time ago.
Also - consider a really worst case scenario where Trump don't just permanently ends intel sharing but also withdraws Patriots from Ukraine.
That's a massive air defense hole that Europe simply can't fill short-term.
|
On April 27 2025 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? "Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario. If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians Show nested quote +Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority. ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option. It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
Answer the question you muppet.
It's always the same with you Russian shills. Ukraine, Europe and the US have some known and some unknown problems that they are magically unable to solve.
Russia is some magical fucking entity without any problems.
It's why no one is taking you serious. You sprout stupid inane bullshit in every single thread without any connection to reality.
|
On April 27 2025 13:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 12:33 Nezgar wrote:On April 27 2025 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? "Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario. If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority. ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option. It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally. You either deliberately misrepresents statistics or are so caught up in your bubble that you cannot separate facts from fiction anymore. It specifically mentioned in the poll that out of those those 52% who favoured a negotiated ending to the war, only around half of them were willing to make ANY territorial concessions. To put that into slightly different numbers that perhaps even you can understand: 9% Declined to comment 38% Told Russia to fuck off 20% Were in favour of a peace deal but with no territorial concession. 27% Were in favour of a peace deal with at least some territorial concessions, though it's not specified which exactly. 5% Were in favour of a peace deal but did not specify what they had in mind. + Show Spoiler +Further polls, like the National Survey of Ukraine from the same period, paints an entirely different picture. 56% believed that Ukraine will definitely win the war 32% believed that Ukraine will likely win the war. 24% favoured a peace deal with the current borders along the existing frontline 71% said that they want to recapture all territories of the 1991 border An even bigger percentage of Ukrainians favoured recapturing the 2022 borders when offered that choice instead of the 1991 borders (73%). You can find those polls here: https://www.iri.org/resources/national-survey-of-ukraine-sept-oct-2024/A lot of the misinformation you are peddling has been debunked already. Favouring a negotiated peace but then not making any concessions in a peace deal is not a peace deal, it's straight up winning the war. And that is without all the other baggage ignored. Even IF Ukraine was willing to make territorial concessions and it had a broad support of the public, they wouldn't then also reject any security guarantees. That is just not going to happen, not matter how much you want to believe it. The positions are mutually exclusive. Russia wants to end the Ukrainian state and identity. Russification. Ukraine wants to continue as a nation and as a people. Until one side moves from their fundamental war goal, you cannot negotiate anything. And so the war will continue until one of the two sides collapses and cannot continue the war anymore. With even moderate Western support and excluding the US entirely, Ukraine is on pace to outlast Russia. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow for the tankies, but that is the material situation. Russia is making small gains with a rate of attrition that is not sustainable at the current rate past 2025, and probably not past 2026 at even a reduced rate. The only way for Russia to achieve their war goal is through eroding western support and hoping that this is enough to cause a collapse in Ukraine before they suffer that fate. None of what you say, either here or in any other political thread, holds any kind of meaning or moral value as long as you are standing on the wrong side of the line - in support of the Russian side. I think it's a frankly pathetic position to take . This is more emotional lashing out, but all I'm saying that you're disagreeing with there is that more Ukrainians are going in the "make a deal" direction. Though it should be noted it's not just more Ukrainians Show nested quote +December polling by YouGov in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the UK found public desire to stand by Ukraine until victory – even if that meant prolonging the war – had slumped in all seven countries over the past 12 months.
Support for an alternative resolution to the conflict – a negotiated end to the fighting, even if that left Russia in control of parts of Ukraine – had increased in every country, the survey found
Ukrainians can (and very well might) keep fighting, regardless of how much western support they're getting (or not getting) a year or so from now, but they aren't going to be as successful at defending themselves as they have been if it's noticeably less military support specifically (which it increasingly looks like will be the case). This dynamic will be exacerbated if/when Trump further helps Russia sustain their efforts by relaxing sanctions on them.
Nezgar pointed out the lies you keep spreading and you call it "emotional lashing out". You're as pathetic as fascist enablers go.
|
On April 27 2025 11:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? Zelensky should have done a deal months ago, now they have lost control of the entire Kursk region they've lost whatever tiny bargaining chip they had.The longer it goes the worse it gets for Ukraine. And seeing more and more European leaders talking up the prospect of war, World War III.No appetite in the European population for that.UK Govt couldn't even manage to mandate the covid jab for NHS workers, had to pull out at the last minute due to too many refuseniks - The idea that kids or their parents are going to accept conscription and fight for Starmer or Macron is just so laughable.
Zelensky wanted to do a deal years ago. Russia is not interested in any deal apart from total surrender. How do you get the deal done? What are the steps Zelensky should have taken to get that deal made?
I think it is important to have all the facts lined up, not just half of them. Most people agree a negotiated end with a peace keeping force, a path into EU and roughly current borders seems like a decent deal for both parties since the war is at a stalemate. How do you make that deal happen if you are Zelensky?
Russia is unhappy since they don't get land they don't hold. They are unhappy Ukraine gets some guarantees so Russia cannot attack again in 2-3 years. They are also unhappy Ukraine drops into the Western sphere and is lost to them unless their psy ops succeed to an insane degree.
Ukraine is very unhappy they have to sign away their land and keep a large standing military in case Russia breaks the deal (likely).
So the current deal that seems acceptable to us is unacceptable for Russia and most of the people in Ukraine.
|
On April 27 2025 11:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? Zelensky should have done a deal months ago, now they have lost control of the entire Kursk region they've lost whatever tiny bargaining chip they had.The longer it goes the worse it gets for Ukraine. And seeing more and more European leaders talking up the prospect of war, World War III.No appetite in the European population for that.UK Govt couldn't even manage to mandate the covid jab for NHS workers, had to pull out at the last minute due to too many refuseniks - The idea that kids or their parents are going to accept conscription and fight for Starmer or Macron is just so laughable.
Yanukovych, the main body of Maidan protesters and their foreign government backers signed an agreement to bring about an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections Feb 21, 2014. A day later radical elements stormed their parliament and overthrew the democratically elected government in Kiev at gunpoint.
That action is why Crimea chose to leave Ukraine. Not coming to an agreement with the Ukrainian citizens in the Donbass who overwhelmingly voted for the president that was couped out and starting anti-terrorist operations against the civilian population protesting the coup is why the East rebelled. They didn't want to make a deal then so they lost Donetsk/Lugansk and plunged the country into a civil war.
They came to a deal to stop the civil war, but then the very next government in Kiev declared it void because the previous administration according to them was illegitimate. The Minsk agreements would have reintegrated the Donbass Republics back into Ukraine but that wasn't enough and the Ukrainian politicians did as they were told by their backers. Their inability to make or stick to any kind of deal and billions upon billions spent on creating an enormous army to undo previous agreements were one of the prime causes of this conflict.
They could have made a deal in 2022 right at the start and lost just the Donbass and Crimea and spared hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives, but they had a 3-4x larger army than Russia's at that point and thought they could kick them out. When they botched the Kharkov and Herson offensives which should have knocked Russia out, when the Russian army was in actual danger and they probably would cut a deal instead of going through with the partial mobilization Kiev still didn't want to make a deal. Bahmut and the complete failure of the 2023 offensive sealed Ukraine's fate in this conflict and still no deal. From that point on every single day not making a deal just means the next days deal will be worse.
One of the reasons Zelenskys presidency officially ending a year ago and his persecution of Ukrainian Constitutional Court judges is a problem for any deal, is that any future Kiev government can just say whatever he signed is null and void because he was a dictator and wasn't legally president. While it may be easy for those that dwell in bubbles to grandstand their bloodthirst and sociopathy towards humanity from the safety of their homes thousands of kilometers away - every single time a deal wasn't made the people most getting shafted were the Ukrainians. At some point responsibility needs to be taken by those that scorned all the previous deals, everything that came after was the result of those gambles. And, as we all know, its easier to gamble with other peoples lives and not your own.
Georgia is a prime example of a country that was able to take back control of itself and not get itself used and thrown away like a condom. Telling both NATO/EU and the Russians to leave them alone.
|
On April 27 2025 17:46 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 11:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? Zelensky should have done a deal months ago, now they have lost control of the entire Kursk region they've lost whatever tiny bargaining chip they had.The longer it goes the worse it gets for Ukraine. And seeing more and more European leaders talking up the prospect of war, World War III.No appetite in the European population for that.UK Govt couldn't even manage to mandate the covid jab for NHS workers, had to pull out at the last minute due to too many refuseniks - The idea that kids or their parents are going to accept conscription and fight for Starmer or Macron is just so laughable. Yanukovych, the main body of Maidan protesters and their foreign government backers signed an agreement to bring about an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections Feb 21, 2014. A day later radical elements stormed their parliament and overthrew the democratically elected government in Kiev at gunpoint. That action is why Crimea chose to leave Ukraine. Not coming to an agreement with the Ukrainian citizens in the Donbass who overwhelmingly voted for the president that was couped out and starting anti-terrorist operations against the civilian population protesting the coup is why the East rebelled. They didn't want to make a deal then so they lost Donetsk/Lugansk and plunged the country into a civil war. They came to a deal to stop the civil war, but then the very next government in Kiev declared it void because the previous administration according to them was illegitimate. The Minsk agreements would have reintegrated the Donbass Republics back into Ukraine but that wasn't enough and the Ukrainian politicians did as they were told by their backers. Their inability to make or stick to any kind of deal and billions upon billions spent on creating an enormous army to undo previous agreements were one of the prime causes of this conflict. They could have made a deal in 2022 right at the start and lost just the Donbass and Crimea and spared hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives, but they had a 3-4x larger army than Russia's at that point and thought they could kick them out. When they botched the Kharkov and Herson offensives which should have knocked Russia out, when the Russian army was in actual danger and they probably would cut a deal instead of going through with the partial mobilization Kiev still didn't want to make a deal. Bahmut and the complete failure of the 2023 offensive sealed Ukraine's fate in this conflict and still no deal. From that point on every single day not making a deal just means the next days deal will be worse. One of the reasons Zelenskys presidency officially ending a year ago and his persecution of Ukrainian Constitutional Court judges is a problem for any deal, is that any future Kiev government can just say whatever he signed is null and void because he was a dictator and wasn't legally president. While it may be easy for those that dwell in bubbles to grandstand their bloodthirst and sociopathy towards humanity from the safety of their homes thousands of kilometers away - every single time a deal wasn't made the people most getting shafted were the Ukrainians. At some point responsibility needs to be taken by those that scorned all the previous deals, everything that came after was the result of those gambles. And, as we all know, its easier to gamble with other peoples lives and not your own. Georgia is a prime example of a country that was able to take back control of itself and not get itself used and thrown away like a condom. Telling both NATO/EU and the Russians to leave them alone.
stfu nazi
|
That action is why Crimea chose to leave Ukraine.
Lol zeo is back with another banger.
|
Just like how Chechnya chose to become part of Russia.
The way certain people twist the truth is genuinely disgusting. This isn't ignorance; Zeo knows better. This is pure twisting of facts to muddy the water and gaslight.
|
United States42676 Posts
On April 27 2025 11:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? Zelensky should have done a deal months ago, now they have lost control of the entire Kursk region they've lost whatever tiny bargaining chip they had.The longer it goes the worse it gets for Ukraine. And seeing more and more European leaders talking up the prospect of war, World War III.No appetite in the European population for that.UK Govt couldn't even manage to mandate the covid jab for NHS workers, had to pull out at the last minute due to too many refuseniks - The idea that kids or their parents are going to accept conscription and fight for Starmer or Macron is just so laughable.
Such a weird post. The idea that you just do a deal is bizarre. Perhaps he should have gone to the deal store and picked one up.
Putin is not, and never has been, interested in making a deal with Ukraine. The entire idea is incompatible with the basic premise of the invasion, that Russia is a great power and does what it likes while Ukraine is a vassal and endures what it must. If Russia was capable of sitting down with Ukraine and negotiating as peers then we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
The very act of negotiating with Ukraine would invalidate Putin's entire ideological justification, for him there is sovereign Ukraine. It is incompatible with a basic understanding of the war and its causes. People who make the argument you're making are literally not able to understand why the war is even happening.
Also Ukraine only ever controlled a sliver of Kursk, they didn't lose the entire Kursk region.
|
On April 27 2025 13:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 12:33 Nezgar wrote:On April 27 2025 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2025 08:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On April 27 2025 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome. I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it. Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda. Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +On April 25 2025 21:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world. As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them. Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone). I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again). Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence. It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely. In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs. or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable. Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing? "Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario. If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority. ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option. It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally. You either deliberately misrepresents statistics or are so caught up in your bubble that you cannot separate facts from fiction anymore. It specifically mentioned in the poll that out of those those 52% who favoured a negotiated ending to the war, only around half of them were willing to make ANY territorial concessions. To put that into slightly different numbers that perhaps even you can understand: 9% Declined to comment 38% Told Russia to fuck off 20% Were in favour of a peace deal but with no territorial concession. 27% Were in favour of a peace deal with at least some territorial concessions, though it's not specified which exactly. 5% Were in favour of a peace deal but did not specify what they had in mind. + Show Spoiler +Further polls, like the National Survey of Ukraine from the same period, paints an entirely different picture. 56% believed that Ukraine will definitely win the war 32% believed that Ukraine will likely win the war. 24% favoured a peace deal with the current borders along the existing frontline 71% said that they want to recapture all territories of the 1991 border An even bigger percentage of Ukrainians favoured recapturing the 2022 borders when offered that choice instead of the 1991 borders (73%). You can find those polls here: https://www.iri.org/resources/national-survey-of-ukraine-sept-oct-2024/A lot of the misinformation you are peddling has been debunked already. Favouring a negotiated peace but then not making any concessions in a peace deal is not a peace deal, it's straight up winning the war. And that is without all the other baggage ignored. Even IF Ukraine was willing to make territorial concessions and it had a broad support of the public, they wouldn't then also reject any security guarantees. That is just not going to happen, not matter how much you want to believe it. The positions are mutually exclusive. Russia wants to end the Ukrainian state and identity. Russification. Ukraine wants to continue as a nation and as a people. Until one side moves from their fundamental war goal, you cannot negotiate anything. And so the war will continue until one of the two sides collapses and cannot continue the war anymore. With even moderate Western support and excluding the US entirely, Ukraine is on pace to outlast Russia. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow for the tankies, but that is the material situation. Russia is making small gains with a rate of attrition that is not sustainable at the current rate past 2025, and probably not past 2026 at even a reduced rate. The only way for Russia to achieve their war goal is through eroding western support and hoping that this is enough to cause a collapse in Ukraine before they suffer that fate. None of what you say, either here or in any other political thread, holds any kind of meaning or moral value as long as you are standing on the wrong side of the line - in support of the Russian side. I think it's a frankly pathetic position to take . This is more emotional lashing out, but all I'm saying that you're disagreeing with there is that more Ukrainians are going in the "make a deal" direction. Though it should be noted it's not just more Ukrainians Show nested quote +December polling by YouGov in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the UK found public desire to stand by Ukraine until victory – even if that meant prolonging the war – had slumped in all seven countries over the past 12 months.
Support for an alternative resolution to the conflict – a negotiated end to the fighting, even if that left Russia in control of parts of Ukraine – had increased in every country, the survey found
Ukrainians can (and very well might) keep fighting, regardless of how much western support they're getting (or not getting) a year or so from now, but they aren't going to be as successful at defending themselves as they have been if it's noticeably less military support specifically (which it increasingly looks like will be the case). This dynamic will be exacerbated if/when Trump further helps Russia sustain their efforts by relaxing sanctions on them.
No, what I am saying is that you are full of shit.
You deliberately misrepresent the facts to support the propaganda that you are trying to peddle.
You are also arguing for something that isn't even an option. There is no "making a deal is the lesser evil" kind of argument because there cannot be a deal unless the positions shift fundamentally. The choice isn't between Ukraine making a painful peace deal or continuing an even more painful war. The choice is between abandoning Ukraine in their fight against imperalist aggression, and supporting Ukraine until Russia cannot continue their war of aggression anymore.
Those are the two options on the table.
Everything else is a smokescreen to erode support.
Perhaps you should put a "RussianHorizon" before your posts so that everyone clearly understands your position.
Masquerading as someone empathetic to the Ukrainian people is something that zeo tried as well, though his mask slipped rather quickly. As does yours, for that matter.
|
The problem with the "UA should take the deal" because less bad option, is that they don't want to look at it from a UA centric vision. They look at it from a Western, or US perspective, not considering they have their own motives, not just reacting from own impulses, only reacting because of "us or rus" unfluences. It's disgusting. UA is fighting. Either you support them in their fight and you're pro UA or you're against them. Not much middle ground tbh. Saying they should take a deal because it will cause less suffering, might seen good on paper, but the big problem is that this is exactly what Russia wants and not what UA wants. When UA decides to stop fighting they'll let you know. And then you can wag your finger with a post hoc analysis to declare to the world they should've taken a deal at whatever point in time all the internet analysists will discuss about ad infinitum.
|
Northern Ireland25283 Posts
On April 27 2025 19:06 Excludos wrote:
Just like how Chechnya chose to become part of Russia.
The way certain people twist the truth is genuinely disgusting. This isn't ignorance; Zeo knows better. This is pure twisting of facts to muddy the water and gaslight.
At least folks are sufficiently knowledgeable and this is a suitable forum for adequate pushback.
It’s the places where that is less on offer that I worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
