• Roody15@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes because they cannot win on the battlefield and have lost an enormous amount of lives. Just because Russia is adversary to the US does not mean we should send 100,000’s of young people to the grave. (Meanwhile safe over in the states we wave Ukrainian flags and call them heroes as we leave them dead or mangled)

      So yes reaching a compromise even if Russia was the aggressor is in the best interest of the people left in Ukraine.

      Would you rather use our weaponry and intelligence and money to prolong this war for 10 years … just to have the same outcome but 20x the number of casualties?

        • Roody15@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry for the assumption but my comment still stands in terms of what is a realistic beneficial outcome for Ukraine at this point? Clearly China, India (probably others) are helping Russia keep its ammo stocks and munitions filled.

          Other than a negotiated settlement we can have either world war 3 with NATO intervening … or we can just drag this out for 5-10 years at an enormous cost and literally 100,000’s of dead Ukrainians.

          • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also not in the states and hey getting sick of explaining that Ukraine is the one who gets to make that call. And they have made it clear they will fight on. This conflict might have some years left but seeing as the (probably others) is north korea I think most know how it ends.

            Oh and China, India are bending russia over right now laughing and saying “cheap oil go burrrrrrr”

            • TommySalami@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They don’t, they just get ready to clutch their pearls and say “well, I never…” when it happens again. These people are from the same stock that let Hitler rise to power, and thought appeasement was the best way to deal with aggressive authoritarians. Anything short of full liberation of Ukraine’s territory only encourages Russian belligerence.

              You want to save lives? You make it clear to Russia this kind of shit will only leave them bloodied and empty handed.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. That’s literally how peace negotiations work. The alternative, winning the war, precludes the necessity of peace negotiations. All negotiations in the history of negotiations are negotiations between aggressor and agressee.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      For the sake of peace, yes, I think they should be willing to make concessions. That’s how negotiations work.

      If you refuse to offer anything you aren’t really negotiating. You’re just issuing demands with no exchange.

      • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh yeah that worked so well for them in 1997 and 2014. Did people forget that peace negotiations have happened before and russia has broken the agreement every time?

        Why would Ukraine or anyone for that matter take anything the russian federation says as not a lie? Also I think that in this case it would be stupid for Ukraine to allow russia any ability to regroup.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          NATO broke the 1997 pact when it bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, in violation of the UN Charter.

          In 2014 Ukraine’s legitimate government was overthrown by the Euromaidan coup.

          Before you screech your revisionist history at me, answer this: are you willing to fight this war until no one is left?

          • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            NATO is not Ukraine (yet), that makes about as much sense as say China getting to invade Iran because the UAE bombed north korea.

            I would think popular uprisings like in 2014 against rich oligarch rule would be more up your alley. Really though that also does not work as much of an excuse to invade another nation state.

            I think my screeching is quite pleasant compared to whatever mental gymnastics are needed to eat what you are selling.

            Oh and as I said above, Ukraine gets to make the call on when they are willing to stop fighting. Not myself, not you.

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If someone came into your country and started to rape, kill and kidnap your people would you roll over and give them whatever they wanted to stop doing that?

        • Redditsucks1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe we should break into their home and see if they want to start peace negotiations. Because nobody calls the police when that happens. Give us half your stuff and we will leave.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          If the alternative was that they would rape, kill, and kidnap my people for the next 20 years without end?

          I’m not willing to fight this war to the last Ukrainian.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is possible to include certain guarantees within a treaty to make it painful for either side to break it, or to make breaking it extremely difficult. That’s what Ukraine would have to demand from Russia - some kind of leverage or collateral to guarantee the peace holds.

          • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are Ukrainian then? Because I think they are the only ones who get to make that call.

            • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              The conflict is not occurring in a vacuum. They can pretend that they are the only ones who can make that decision, but without the West sending ridiculous amounts of money in arms and support, they wouldn’t be in a position to make any decision. As long as they’re entirely dependent on others, they can’t monopolize the decision making here.

              • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                See you have an issue in that argument. Without support (as that is what I assume would be the threat here) Ukraine has very clearly stated that it would fight on. You seem to forget that the west just lost a war in Afghanistan, who had no real foreign support.

                All that cutting support off would do would drag this conflict out and make it mostly partisan action.