I don’t get it. Putin wants the land, their neutrality, to stop any weapon sales, for them not to join any alliance. And what does Ukraine get, besides eventual second invasion?
True, we would be talking of a third invasion. Depends if you count paramilitary units that invaded Donbass after the occupation of Crimea. In that case it would be the fourth invasion.
That’s a very stupid premise. You think Ukraine should surrender now only to be surely destroyed later. You think that is preferable to fighting for their freedom.
I don’t know what kind of coward thinks in such terms. No offense.
I have seen this account commenting on other posts relating to Ukraine / Russia war. Always the same premise that Ukraine back down, leave itself unprotected and it will be all good. Obviously totally ignoring prior history or the fact Russia can coexist with other fully armed NATO neighbours at it other borders without invading them.
You could drive yourself mad arguing with these nitwits so best to ignore and move on.
Don’t ignore them and move on. At least give them a private tag of “Russian shill” or similar so it is easy to identify and call them out next time so others don’t waste their time.
I am warning you now, if you insult me again we are done. I enjoy having conversations with people no matter if I agree with them or not but only as long as it remain civil.
Yes, surrendering now is better than losing more and more territories later.
Ukraine will not be destroyed later, it will be destroyed if it doesn’t make peace now.
If you’re so brave, why aren’t you at the front lines defending them?
Let’s be serious, if Mexico was about to join a Russia or China led alliance, would the U.S. not invade Mexico? The U.S. would impose neutrality to Mexico. You can also refer to the Cuba missile crisis.
Baltics have been in this alliance since 2004. What danger did that prove to pose to Russia?
Ukraine and all other post-Soviet countries rushed into NATO after being invaded, pillaged, and raped repeatedly by Russians for decades or centuries. You think this is comparable to Mexico/US? Russian aggression is a top reason for NATO’s growth, e.g. now thanks to the genius “special military operation”, Sweden and Finland joined and the border Russia shares with NATO doubled.
Those Baltic countries are further away from Moscow than Ukraine.
Besides, the US has a long, documented history of triggering regime change in foreign countries and installing leaders who serve their interests. They also have invaded countless counties, but I guess it’s only bad when Russia does it?
That wasn’t responsive to anything I said. You think the difference in range between Latvia to Moscow and Ukraine to Moscow is actually a factor? That range? In the 21st Century? Against the whole of NATO? Keep stretching.
only bad when Russia does it?
You’re the only one here carrying water for invaders mate. I don’t see the US invading and annexing territories.
If the US invaded Mexico and then asked it not to join any military alliance? I think you’d be hard pressed to find somebody who’d find those demands acceptable, even here
And Hitler only invaded France because France declared war on Germany.
There were no German ambitions in France beyond Alsace-Lorraine, had they not done anything in response to the German-Polish war then France would have been spared.
Therefore France is responsible for every war crime the nazis committed in France.
I really hope I don’t need explain why this logic is imperialist apologia.
The problem with your statements is that you’re putting your hypothetical dictator-led bullshit on the same level as NATO membership. They aren’t the same thing, they will never be the same thing. Putin is a spineless, cowardly, asswipe of a dictator whose word is worth fuck-all, as evidenced by lying about not invading Ukraine last time. Then Crimea happened. Then this invasion happened.
Shit, half the reason we have militaries to begin with is because of the existence of narcissists who claw their way into power by any means necessary, stepping on anyone and anything they can to do so.
I don’t get it. Putin wants the land, their neutrality, to stop any weapon sales, for them not to join any alliance. And what does Ukraine get, besides eventual second invasion?
They get Putin
We are already up to the second invasion, in recent times.
True, we would be talking of a third invasion. Depends if you count paramilitary units that invaded Donbass after the occupation of Crimea. In that case it would be the fourth invasion.
What do you mean, Ukraine gets?
Putin probably.
They’re inflating this because Russia can’t let the war end quickly for his own safety.
I imagine Putin would answer you that Ukraine gets to continue existing as an independent country.
…till the eventual next invasion against which Ukraine will have no ability to defend itself from because of the concessions.
There’s no need for a next invasion if the conditions specified above are met.
That’s a very stupid premise. You think Ukraine should surrender now only to be surely destroyed later. You think that is preferable to fighting for their freedom.
I don’t know what kind of coward thinks in such terms. No offense.
Troll or Russian bot I’d guess.
.ml
Thats all you need to read to know their comments are worthless.
I have seen this account commenting on other posts relating to Ukraine / Russia war. Always the same premise that Ukraine back down, leave itself unprotected and it will be all good. Obviously totally ignoring prior history or the fact Russia can coexist with other fully armed NATO neighbours at it other borders without invading them.
You could drive yourself mad arguing with these nitwits so best to ignore and move on.
Don’t ignore them and move on. At least give them a private tag of “Russian shill” or similar so it is easy to identify and call them out next time so others don’t waste their time.
I am warning you now, if you insult me again we are done. I enjoy having conversations with people no matter if I agree with them or not but only as long as it remain civil.
Yes, surrendering now is better than losing more and more territories later.
Ukraine will not be destroyed later, it will be destroyed if it doesn’t make peace now.
If you’re so brave, why aren’t you at the front lines defending them?
Removed by mod
“There’s no need for a greater invasion, they already have Crimea”
Crimea is a different conversation.
Let’s be serious, if Mexico was about to join a Russia or China led alliance, would the U.S. not invade Mexico? The U.S. would impose neutrality to Mexico. You can also refer to the Cuba missile crisis.
What right does Moscow have to impose its will on other sovereign nations? None.
Baltics have been in this alliance since 2004. What danger did that prove to pose to Russia?
Ukraine and all other post-Soviet countries rushed into NATO after being invaded, pillaged, and raped repeatedly by Russians for decades or centuries. You think this is comparable to Mexico/US? Russian aggression is a top reason for NATO’s growth, e.g. now thanks to the genius “special military operation”, Sweden and Finland joined and the border Russia shares with NATO doubled.
Get a clue vatnik
Those Baltic countries are further away from Moscow than Ukraine.
Besides, the US has a long, documented history of triggering regime change in foreign countries and installing leaders who serve their interests. They also have invaded countless counties, but I guess it’s only bad when Russia does it?
That wasn’t responsive to anything I said. You think the difference in range between Latvia to Moscow and Ukraine to Moscow is actually a factor? That range? In the 21st Century? Against the whole of NATO? Keep stretching.
You’re the only one here carrying water for invaders mate. I don’t see the US invading and annexing territories.
If the US invaded Mexico and then asked it not to join any military alliance? I think you’d be hard pressed to find somebody who’d find those demands acceptable, even here
The U.S. has a long, documented history of triggering regime change in foreign countries and installing leaders who serves the US interests.
And Hitler only invaded France because France declared war on Germany.
There were no German ambitions in France beyond Alsace-Lorraine, had they not done anything in response to the German-Polish war then France would have been spared.
Therefore France is responsible for every war crime the nazis committed in France.
I really hope I don’t need explain why this logic is imperialist apologia.
Never said anything remotely close to what you are describing.
The problem with your statements is that you’re putting your hypothetical dictator-led bullshit on the same level as NATO membership. They aren’t the same thing, they will never be the same thing. Putin is a spineless, cowardly, asswipe of a dictator whose word is worth fuck-all, as evidenced by lying about not invading Ukraine last time. Then Crimea happened. Then this invasion happened.
Shit, half the reason we have militaries to begin with is because of the existence of narcissists who claw their way into power by any means necessary, stepping on anyone and anything they can to do so.
What are you talking about? Is the Cuba missile crisis hypothetical?
That thing solved with NATO oversight?
I knew NATO was a good thing. They should get more countries involved in NATO
Witch would be a flat out lie
Yeah. The absolute best that they can hope for is a Belarus like puppet state.