Yeah, if only they'd just surrendered to Putin immediately he wouldn't have had to massacre so many of them in this way. He could have done it quietly and out of sight, where it wouldn't bother us.
You seem to think that (1) there is something legitimate to negotiate and (2) Putin can be taken at his word.
Putin already annexed Crimea in 2014, breaking one Russian promise to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This invasion marks a second time Russia proved they can’t be trusted. Why would anybody trust them a third time?
Youre wrong on all counts there, but most importantly to the actual topic of discussion, a negotiated settlement in which the aggressor is just given some of the territory they are attempting to conquer (which is exactly what a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia as the war has gone thus far would have been, because what else could Ukraine have possibly offered to convince Russia that it was worth it to give up their attack?) is not a wish for peace, its a wish for appeasement. It sounds like peace at first glance, sure, but by rewarding aggressive action, it gives every incentive for the aggressor to simply attack again later, in the hope of gaining more concessions. If this kind of policy led to peace, there never would have been a second world war. I do not like war the way you seem to think, but I do not want it tomorrow either. Ensuring that there is as little incentive as possible for those with the means to start them to do so, requires that those that start wars are not allowed to gain by doing so, and Russia has indisputably started this one, therefore to ensure peace, it must lose.
It would be great if all peace took was for everyone involved to sit down and talk, but as you say, the world is not like that.
Do you think a negotiation would guarantee peace? Russia has shown that any peace is temporary and they’ll continue whenever they like. Russia already invaded and seized Ukrainian territory once. The world didn’t take a harsh response, and here we are, with Russia invading and trying to seize Ukrainian territory once more.
What would be so different this time to stop Russia from going after Ukraine once more? At some point you have to dig in your heels. It’s a paradox of peace – you cannot have a peaceful society unless you are willing to fight to defend it.
What was vague about my analogy? I’m pretty sure showing that people generally can’t just up and leave a country en masse even if they’ll die if they remain by giving an example of that during a similarly dire time is the opposite of vague.
The nazis argued that the Czechs did, just like you are arguing the Ukrainians did. Every argument you make for this war on Russia’s side is an argument the nazis made for themselves. This I haven’t seen anyone provide me anything else. Only ban me from ml’s news for “trivializing nazism”. Ironic because denying the nature of nazi foreign policy does a lot to trivialize it.
The account is a day old. It’s going to be a throwaway account. The person running it is just gonna be on a new account the next time you see them.
A more-interesting mechanism might be one that has some kind of trust metric.
Reddit Enhancement Suite remembered how many upvotes and downvotes you’d given a user on past posts and comments and put a total of each by their username, so there was an immediate trust metric available.
There are ways to game that, like building up bogus accounts with a reputation for the specific purpose of agenda-based posting – but if you’ve got a group using burner accounts to try to influence social media that has to at least pay for those accounts by producing past helpful and constructive content, I’d say that we’re at least starting things off on the right foot. And there are counters to such gaming attempts.
Those would be the agreements over Ukrainian territory Putin had already invaded and annexed? Still seems like Putin was the one who started this in that case…
Russia never followed the Minsk agreements. One of the main thing in the agreements Russia had to do was pull out their troops from Ukraine, they never did.
If you are a man you are not allowed to leave. There are people who will promise to smuggle you out for many tens of thousands of dollars, but there’s no guarantee they will succeed at doing it, or even seriously try.
That statement is both transphobic and sexist. It implies that gender determines one’s abilities or choices, which is not only untrue but also harmful. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their gender identity
I’m curious how you’d phrase it, there is a law in Ukraine and it is widely reported to apply to “men aged 18 to 60”. What phrasing would more accurately depict the current situation without having the problems you list? If you meant instead that the law itself is problematic, then I can understand that, it’s received some criticism for that side of things.
Everyone does deserve respect and dignity*. The commenter above just meant that the martial law forces a part of the population to be used for conscription
*Until they break the social contract themselves. I know it wasn’t implied in this case but it’s a preventive mention so someone doesn’t make any weird assumptions
Add comment