Heavy fighting has been reported around the eastern cities of Avdiivka and Bakhmut. Meanwhile, at least six people have been injured after a swarm of Russian drones hit central and northeastern Ukraine.
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?
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
Minsk 1 and 2; can’t negotiate with someone who doesn’t know the meaning of good faith.
The only negotiation should be the timeframe when Russia leaves and goes home.
The only timeline that should be accepted is “immediately”.
deleted by creator
-“Give me your home.”
“Wtf, no!”
-“Well then I’ll kill you for it then”
Some random observer: “I wish they’d negotiated and just given the guy half of their home, then we’d not be in this situation…”
deleted by creator
Is that really the best response you can think of?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
The really grim thing about this ignorant comment is that everyone did
Russia has Crimea because they did negotiate last time. They surrendered land for peace. And that’s why it isn’t happening again
deleted by creator
Yes so they could all become Putin’s slave army after he took the rest of Ukraine without fear of Western aid and set his sights on the Baltics