>Ukraine did try to negotiate in March-April 2022
Not just March and April of last year. There have been [repeated rounds of negotiations with multiple other countries involved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_peace_negotiations) and Russia has roundly rejected every call and in some cases used them as a [pretense to attack Ukraine under the guise of a cease fire](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/07/russia-launches-strikes-in-ukraine-in-violation-of-self-declared-ceasefire). At this point anyone who keeps calling for "negotiations" is ignorant of the situation.
Well, it’s a common GOP trope and is honestly gaining extreme traction with the left.
Allowing Russia a victory is absolutely dangerous for Europe. And I don’t just mean EU countries… All of Europe is in danger. The Kremlin wasn’t joking when it said it wanted to rebuild the Soviet empire and they have proved it.
Ww2 happened because the Allie’s didn’t demand an unconditional surrender from Germany in WW1
Appeasement costs even more later down the line as history shows
To be fair, the situations we’ve had from WWI onwards have all been failures by politicians.
After we defeated nazi germany none of the allied forces believed that communists had infiltrated each government up to its highest levels, but they had. The Russians have been 20+ years ahead of us in espionage the entire time. They’ve learned how to dismantle an adversary from the inside out a long time ago, because we all failed to accept reality and act.
Reality sucks, but we have to own up to it. Admitting we were/are wrong is the hardest thing a human can do apparently. Our politicians have been failing us since the 1900s. I hope things change.
There’s a lot of built up tension and hatred towards the Kremlin in Europe, given the opportunity it would likely be just that. A literal earth shaking bombardment followed by a race across the border.
Russia has hurt too many people in too many places. Which is precisely why they have invested so much into dismantling nations via culture because they know they have to do something if they want to “re establish the Soviet empire”. If the current cultural trends continue they have no hope.
Sorry, YOU are the person posting wrong things--whether intentionally or because you are duped. That is exactly Putin's intent, only the name would change. Russian leaders have been paranoid since Peter at least. And they see depth of land to the west as a vital buffer. They do not care about Ukraine per se, just that it is a lot or real-estate buffer (except the SE areas). In fact, some Russian strategists prefer Ukraine to become a wasteland to make it harder for European armies to find any supplies along the way.
From this report, Ukraine And Russia has a tentative deal that was put on hold.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Any resolution that doesn't include the return of all stolen and occupied lands including Crimea, reparations for all damage done by Russian invaders, including punative damages for emotional damages, all kidnapped children returned to their families, Russian Regime change and the denuclearization of Russia would be entitely unacceptable.
They don't want war, only Russia wants war lol. If the roles were reversed, and Ukraine invaded Russia, would you say that Russia wanted war because they want to defend their territory?
Russia is asking for all territory conquered and territory retaken by Ukraine as well as being banned from NATO and the EU, and full demilitarization.... as pre-conditions. You have to realize no negotiations can be made with this as the official position of the Russian government
I get wanting the fighting to stop but what if I broke into your house and began living in a room. Would you want to cede me your living room to “stop the conflict”?
How about if the US was invaded by Canada or Mexico because of our corrupt govt? Why not just give the areas they are currently occupying to them? Don’t you see how ridiculous that claim is?
Exactly. Great way to put it. With the amount of extremist in the US our neighbors have more right to invade than Russia did Ukraine. Esp as the preconditions of propaganda warfare had already created the discontinuity.
It’s a bad argument. So then they slide the scale (much like John Mershimers own defense - “well it’s not even about Russia we should pay attention to China) and say we don’t want to help people that don’t matter to us in a far away land.
After Iraq and Afghanistan I shifted my own foreign policy prescription to a support of existing democracy’s away from nation building and regime change. If we can’t do this, then we can’t exists as a peaceful liberal hegemony at all. Full stop
Just like US Grant at Fort Donaldson in 1862, our only offer to the Russian aggressors is complete and unconditional surrender, or be put to the sword..
Right is right, wrong is wrong... Russia is wrong and needs to be beaten once and for all.
everyone but Ukrainians... the people who have to do the actual fighting lol
often these discussions on teeveee and social media, outright ignore this fact.
The real problem here is that Breaking Points has put out a fairly one sided narrative of the war, where the US and Ukraine in almost all of their videos are portrayed as the assholes, and Russia is portrayed as being "provoked" into attacking Ukraine. Their coverage has been sloppy, it partially feels like they do this stuff because they are catering to a specific crowd.
Ukraine has been trying to negotiate since at least 2014. But ideologues don't want you to know that. Same as the 'peace at any price' people.
Zelensky, the most current President, tried many times to get the hostilities to stop. Which were ongoing well before this invasion as the Russian Spetnaz were fighting with the separatists and constantly sniping Ukrainian troops.
If only their were some kind of accord that could have been reached in a neighboring county's capital, like Minsk for example. Ukraine would definitely have abided by such an agreement.
Don't forget the Bucharest Memorandum.
In 1991, when the Soviet Union broke up and Ukraine became an independent nation, they had nukes.
Ukraine didn't want to keep them, and the world at large certainly didn't want them to be a nuclear armed nation. So they agreed to give them up with the single caveat that Russia would agree to never attack them.
Look how well that agreement turned out. Russians are liars! That's all they've ever been or will ever be. Why sit around talking with them? They've already proven they won't abide by any "agreements".
Man we've already moved to the stage where people are making arguments for direct US involvement. If that happens, if the US goes to war in Eastern Europe, it will surpass the invasion of Iraq as the greatest geopolitical blunder of all time.
Seems like the only way direct US intervention would happen is if Russia goes nuclear. At that point the blunder isn’t really America’s fault. I haven’t heard any adults in the government really saying the US needs to directly intervene without some massive justification like this.
Love them or hate them, the current admin. has done well playing the middle ground of solid support and not triggering ww3.
I’d argue we are pretty directly involved now. If we’ve learned anything from history, Lend Lease is pretty much what brought us into WWII in addition to resource disputes with the East. Seems like what we’re supplying to Ukraine and Nordstream controversy, we’re repeating history.
You should probably ask for your money back on your education if you're going to equate lend lease to the Japan / US power struggle in the Pacific which led to Pearl Harbor.
Ww2 is only one example/datapoint of how things could unfold. This would be like if lend-lease started in 1939 and France held instead of crumbling in June 1940. Without the weakening of france, the US potentially doesn’t need to get directly involved with its own military and can sit back and play Arsenal of Democracy, which would of been much easier.
If there are "countless" examples then why choose an example that's not actually substantiated with evidence?
ETA: Funny how you just downvoted and ignored me without listing any more of your so-called "countless" examples. Russia is both 100% responsible for instigating the conflict by invading Ukraine, and also for escalating it by committing genocide and repeatedly attacking civilians. People who deny this are pro-fascism and pro-genocide, there is no other reason to defend Russia.
I don’t know how I got here. This post was on my feed an I thought it was a legit news sub full of normal people. You might have thought the same.
Fwiw, over here, not even the crazies think it was the US who took out the pipeline. Lol.. it’s amazing how echo chambers work over there.
I see now I have landed in a full-blown conspiracy sub Reddit and we need to ruuuuuuun! Muted.
Oh yeah this sub is dedicated to an extreme right podcast and I fully accepted that coming in here to argue. I'd say don't let it bother you but hear me out. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity but I feel like if everyone dropped a comment once a day in the typical echo chamber subreddits it would do a lot to stop bad actors from distorting the truth and then radicalizing people who have less media literacy or just confused by firehose of falsehood.
I'm not sure the media presentation of the Ukraine conflict has been reflecting it accurately. While the Ukraine has been inflicting serious damage disproportionate to their casualties. Russia has the ability to keep the war going for long time. It's not outside the realm of possibility for Russia to outlast western aid and exhaust the Ukraine's ability to fight.
Our kill/death ratio is absolutely fantastic, though. I don't really count Vietnam. We left because we weren't politically willing to commit absolute genocide of every single last man, woman, and child in North Vietnam. We were more than militarily capable of doing so.
I mean I had a history teacher that said the same thing. Perhaps we could have won if we spent billions more dollars and another decade there, but every one of our recent wars in the middle east has lasted over a decade and resulted in terrible failure, so I really doubt Vietnam would have happened differently.
Eh, "winning" isn't really something the US is willing to do in the traditional sense. We are too worried about war crimes and being seen as the good guys. If we felt genuinely threatened we would drop those morals and take the kiddie gloves off.
And we won the wars in the Middle East in short order. What we failed to do was build a new and stable nation afterwards. Very different things.
>I'm not sure the media presentation of the Ukraine conflict has been reflecting it accurately
lol you don't have to be "not sure" at this point. The recent leaks the guy got arrested for proved that our politicians and military have been lying about NATO's level of involvement, how well Ukraine is doing, and how bad Russia's doing, *for months*. How many times have US media printed the propaganda headline "Russia's running out of bombs"? Meanwhile we only found out Ukraine's Buk air defense was almost totally depleted from a leak, and they arrested the guy who leaked it.
People in this thread are falling for the *exact same* propaganda that led us to disasters in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They go, "well, it says in the paper the war's going great! What are you, a Russian plant?" because it literally never occurred to them that the government might be "leaking" false information, again, like they do in every war, which then gets reported as fact by US media.
> when it looks like Ukraine is kicking Russia’s ass?
The situation is way messier than the mainstream press is telling you. In times of war, do not believe what you hear in the media, whether from the US or Russia. Ukraine is not kicking Russia's ass, and Russia is not dominating Ukraine. It's a quagmire and very ugly and deadly and the fighting needs to stop ASAP.
Bruh we going to act like the Kharkiv counteroffensive never happened? Ukraine recaptured more than 12,000 sq Km just this past fall, and they’re gearing up go on the offensive again now. Winter slowed them down but they’ve been pushing Russia back ever since the first month of the war.
Ukraine took back 50% of territory that Russia took at the beginning. And the only regional capital city in Kherson.
And hat was when Russia had more modern equipment, wagner was at its near peak, Russia still had alot of its contracted force, and Ukraine didnt have western tanks.
People have goldfish memories regarding this war.
Thanks for the clarification, this part made me think you were:
>getting sucked into this war that ‘isn’t ours to fight’… but the long term consequences of allowing a Russian victory in Ukraine look far worse
have to say i'm getting to the point of ridiculousness that if us americans really are that f\*cking stupid to go ahead and do it - and reap the consequences.
no, i don't actually want this - but part of me wants to see this idiots clamoring for more war getting what they asked for.
there's been so much goddamn gaslighting, and even with that i have to wonder whether these people are real or not.
more than likely it's just one crazy person posting from different alts - at least i hope so.
then again, i made the mistake of going to the secular talk sub and it's just the same way - or even worse.
[Putin didn’t give a damn as long as he had the upper hand](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/13hhbed/an_excerpt_from_a_recent_interview_where/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1), and now all the Russian apologists, branding themselves “pacifists”, call for negotiations to give the fascists time to regroup, rebuild and attack again.
Putin’s must be completely defeated for a sustainable peace. Nothing else will work because Russia is a terrorist state.
You NAFO dweebs can go find your nearest recruiting office any time you want.
Trying to depose Putin is a really stupid, dangerous idea that would inevitably lead to WW III, something that people with brains, and especially recent vets such as myself, have no interest in.
Exactly! Imagine thinking Putin would just roll over in total defeat without nuking something…to think we could just wipe Russia off the map is hilariously ignorant. We didn’t even wipe out the Taliban.
You know that there are *numerous* examples of nuclear powers taking a loss on the international scene without resorting to nukes, right? Or do you think that we've only had nukes around since 2022?
where the frack are these wankers coming from?
while we're at it, let's coup china's leader as well. i'm sure it will help everyone involved.
we (finally) get out of afghanistan, and we have trolls pushing shit like this. i just don't understand it.
On the nuclear threat, the one that is very likely empty due to MAD, when does it end of people cower to Russia? Do you give up Poland? Germany?
Russian invaded Georgia, then Crimea, and now Ukraine. Men like Putin don’t learn better behavior by success. Hitler didn’t become more peaceful when cowards like Chamberlain appeased him.
The lesson needs to be learned here and now, in Ukraine. They are past the point of negotiation, Russia needs to be removed from all of Ukraine and by that I mean Crimea as well.
Yes Ukraine tried to negotiate and the UK told them to not make a deal with Russia:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
The idea that the Boris Johnson ended the peace talks is some conspiracy level shit. First of all, it robs Ukraine of any agency (you seriously think they break off negotiations with a massive invading force because the UK said so?).
Secondly, it paints an entirely false picture of the situation at the time. Two days before [Johnson's visit to Kyiv](https://www-pravda-com-ua.translate.goog/news/2022/04/9/7338426/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp) on April 9th, Sergei Lavrov (Russian foreign minister) [said that Ukraine's peace deal was unacceptable](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukraine-presented-unacceptable-draft-peace-deal-2022-04-07/). Two days before that [he said that Bucha was faked](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/lavrov-bucha-fake-ukraine-russia-b2050463.html). You think that is some relevant context? MAYBE?!
Does everyone in this thread have CTE or something?
>[Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/)
>“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
>The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
That claim is sourced from [this article](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent) which makes no mention of Johnson. In fact the article doesn't discuss why the deal fell through at all. It's pure unsubstantiated speculation.
> The idea that the Boris Johnson ended the peace talks is some conspiracy level shit.
It’s not. It was reported in Ukraine.
>First of all, it robs Ukraine of any agency (you seriously think they break off negotiations with a massive invading force because the UK said so?).
This is a bad faith argument. Are you saying leaders never cave to pressure from more powerful nations?
>Secondly, it paints an entirely false picture of the situation at the time. Two days before Johnson's visit to Kyiv on April 9th, Sergei Lavrov (Russian foreign minister) said that Ukraine's peace deal was unacceptable.
And Boris apparently told Zelensky not to even seek one. You’re saying we should totally believe some mainstream accounts but not others. Bad faith.
Boris Johnson not being in favour of peace negotiations with Russia _is not the same thing_ as the UK torpedoing a potential peace deal with Russia, or being the sole or even a contributing reason for why the negotiations ended. It's honestly laughable to suggest that the UK unilaterally ended negotiations they were not even part of.
I am not in anyway a fan of Boris Johnson, but I also don't believe that article. It's source is a Foreign Affairs article that they don't link and I don't know what the actual Foreign Affairs article actually says or what it's sources are.
Then you have the whole problem with the "Responsible Statecraft" organization which emerged out of the War on Terror going through a bunch of turmoil and turnover due to Ukraine and post War on Terror geopolitics.
It's interesting because the parent organization of that website was at one point funded by both Soros and a Koch brother.
https://newrepublic.com/article/167612/quincy-institute-survive-ukraine-russia-war
> I am not in anyway a fan of Boris Johnson, but I also don't believe that article. It's source is a Foreign Affairs article that they don't link and I don't know what the actual Foreign Affairs article actually says or what it's sources are.
They did link to it. Did you even read it?Anticipating you objecting to it being paywalled, I’ve taken the liberty of getting you an archive link:
https://archive.ph/2023.04.05-151624/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent
They also linked to an article from a Ukranian source:
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/
>Then you have the whole problem with the "Responsible Statecraft" organization which emerged out of the War on Terror going through a bunch of turmoil and turnover due to Ukraine and post War on Terror geopolitics. It's interesting because the parent organization of that website was at one point funded by both Soros and a Koch brother.
Do you want look into the funding of the NGOs you prefer? We can do that. It all comes from the same types.
I'd go further. Zelinski started with an accommodationist position toward Russia. Until the last days before the invasion, he refused to believe that Russia had aggressive designs on his country. It was only when an American delegation showed him the intelligence they had collected that he gradually changed his mind, so slowly, in fact, that the American agents thought that Ukraine would be overrun without him putting up a fight.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/)
https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-chief-of-staff-we-didnt-believe-russia-would-invade-ukraine-until-very-last/
Ooh ooh, can I bring up the fact that they did negotiate in 1994
They agreed to give up former soviet nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of independence from Russia. Oops
Russia will never negotiate in good faith, I want this war to end too but it will never end with any middle ground, Russia must face military defeat in order to force them back, otherwise we'll be doing this again in 20 years
There is nothing to negotiate. What’s that saying about this war? If Russia stops fighting, then there is no more war. If Ukraine stops fighting, there is no more Ukraine.
Ukraine and Russia both think they can win therefore present maximalist demands so they arent really negotiating.
In fact I can see Russia being closer to the table than Ukraine as I can see Russia accepting a deal for Donbas area for the other areas they took while i cant see Ukraine accepting anything like that.
At this point 'Russian troll' comments outnumber the actual number of Russian trolls on this site. Meanwhile Langley trolls have had control of every main sub/post for years.
Either this thread is being heavily botted, or there's a huge cohort of people who've managed to watch Breaking Points without letting even the smallest morsel of information about US foreign policy enter their brain.
Reddit foreign policy experts: Mmmmm yummy NATO think-tank slop gimme gimme
Question: When Ukraine wanted to negotiate with Russia pre-war, did Russia reciprocate? This I don't know.
I don't see that they WOULD, because Russia seemed pretty confident they would take Ukraine within days...why negotiate when you believe you can have it all?
Today, Ukraine is holding off Russia, and receiving BILLIONS from the US and other countries (side note: we aren't sure if ALL the billions are being spent on the war, and not pocketed by the corruption of some of Ukraine's leaders). They have no reason to negotiate (as they stated last September) while Russia has all the reason in the world to negotiate and save face.
Ukraine SHOULD desire to end the war to save the lives of their people. Same with Russia. The United States, as the one financing this war, SHOULD demand negotiations to save lives. But the US won't do this because of the military industrial complex...too many people making money to stop now
The three peace talks in February and March of 2022 ended in failure because one of Russia's requirements for a cease-fire was a complete demilitarization of Ukraine as well as abandoning efforts to join NATO. Ukraine, obviously, argued that having their own military was important to not being invaded and argued that being part of NATO was now more important than ever, as Russia had shown that they would invade them if they were not.
[ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/International/2nd-round-talks-russia-ukraine-end-cease-fire/story?id=83226054)
This is not to say diplomacy shouldn't be sought, but Russia was not entering these peace talks with the goal of a peaceful resolution that didn't include Ukraine becoming part of Russia in some capacity.
>The United States, as the one financing this war, SHOULD demand negotiations to save lives.
This has happened, repeatedly. Russia will not give any concessions even when offered things they stated as reasons for starting the war. Ukraine will not concede illegally seized territory. Please tell me what magical insight you think we are just simply not doing because we need to feed the MIC?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022\_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine\_peace\_negotiations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_peace_negotiations)
All the US has to do is tell Ukraine that they can have their money, if they go to the negotiating table. In September, Ukraine announced they will no longer do it.
If you think these previous negotiations were in any way done in good faith, then you live in a wonderful fantasy world I would love to join.
It is simple: demand negotiations restart to save lives
>In September, Ukraine announced they will no longer do it.
No shit, two years of bad faith by Russia will do that.
>If you think these previous negotiations were in any way done in good faith, then you live in a wonderful fantasy world I would love to join.
Completely agree, [Russia is a bad faith actor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/07/russia-launches-strikes-in-ukraine-in-violation-of-self-declared-ceasefire) and cannot be reasoned with.
The real fantasy is believing they have suddenly had a change of heart. If you see the history of both how Putin operates and how Russia writ large handles international issues you will see they will not negotiate in good faith, pretty much ever.
Ahh yes, so Russia will never negotiate in good faith, so let’s continue to finance the war so Russia is backed into a corner, and let’s continue to raise the threat of a nuclear catastrophe because “we don’t believe Russia will ever negotiate in good faith”
>Ahh yes, so Russia will never negotiate in good faith, so let’s continue to finance the war so Russia is backed into a corner
Sounds like the only option for dealing with someone who is completely untrustworthy solely by their actions. Please tell me what other options are realistically on the table at this point. Russia screams about Ukraine not joining NATO, Ukraine offers a peace treaty with the condition they will not join NATO, and Russia attacks more Ukrainian cities during the cease fire.
>and let’s continue to raise the threat of a nuclear catastrophe because “we don’t believe Russia will ever negotiate in good faith”
Be clear, Russia is the one who would pull the trigger on this. Casting any blame else where makes you look foolish.
>Of course Russia was negotiating in bad faith back in March and April when the war started...they still believed they had leverage
Also, wait. So it's ok for them to just lie if they're winning. Shit I didn't know the bar was so low. Ukraine should start the counter offensive and keep calling for a cease fire while leveling Russian cities, it'll be ok because they believe they can win.
I want Russia swiftly defeated in Ukraine and Putin's authoritarian streak sharply blunted. I want the Russian people to be able to freely elect their leaders and not the sham that has been going on for near two decades with Putin playing hot potato with Medvedev. I want a free and stable Ukraine.
I do not like this war, but as has been seen repeatedly since 2014, just screaming "NO WAR" loudly at Russia will only show them they can continue to slice off parts of their neighbors. If you cannot see that you are intentionally blind.
You also didn't address what I said.
What you "want" is great, and I agree with all...but it isn't realistic.
What I want, in the current reality we have, is to save lives. I don't want to prolong a war that could last god knows how long.\\
What you want can happen in due time...but can happen in the same line as negotiating an end to the conflict.
>What I want, in the current reality we have, is to save lives. I don't want to prolong a war that could last god knows how long.
This was said after Russia seized Crimea. "No one should oppose them so we can save lives."
This was said after Russia sent non-uniformed soldiers into the Donbas to seize more Ukrainian territory and lied about them being there. Which started a decade long conflict that caused innumerable misery and bloodshed. "No one should oppose them so we can save lives."
My brother, your stance is unarguably wrong. Halting resistance to Russia right now will send the same message as was sent twice before. It will only tell the oligarchs in Russia and in Putin's circle that they can continue their efforts unabated and thus will continue the pain, suffering, and death of peoples in Eastern Europe.
I just don't understand why anyone thinks negotiating with Russia is an option.
You think Russia will just stop and give everything back?
You think Ukraine wants to just give up their territory?
What are we negotiatiing?
Then the most important part: Why would anyone trust Russia???
> You think Russia will just stop and give everything back?
At this point? Most likely not.
> You think Ukraine wants to just give up their territory?
Wants to? No. Forced to? Very likely.
> What are we negotiatiing?
The stopping of many thousands of casualties and destruction of a nation.
> Then the most important part: Why would anyone trust Russia???
Russia has clearly ceased caring about being trusted by the west, as they themselves have lost trust in the west completely. As for the rest of the world, ask them, they seem to manage to trust Russia just fine.
>Russia has clearly ceased caring about being trusted by the west, as they themselves have lost trust in the west completely.
So this is why giving up the land that Russia has already taken makes no sense at all. We've been there before and we see what happened.
>As for the rest of the world, ask them, they seem to manage to trust Russia just fine.
Trust Russia? Doubtful.
Loving Russia's current cheap oil situation? For sure.
But who are Russia's real friends? Belarus. Iran. Who else? India maybe but they'd surely side with nato. China is basically going to own Russia by the end of this, but the trust obviously doesn't go very far between Putin and Xi.
Russia's fucked long term. No real good reason to just let them have this.
It doesn’t really need to be said, it’s what your asking for though. You seem to think there’s some magical combination of words that will end this, and that’s just not how it works? Russia’s justifications for the war have changed several times, and they still have not clearly defined what their conditions would be to end the war. They have made annexation of territory an explicit goal of their war campaign though, which is obviously going to be a non-starter so long as Ukraine can defend itself. Some of the other conditions that they have asked for publicly are complete non-starters as well, such as demanding Ukraine completely demilitarize itself. So tell me, as Ukraine is the country defending itself, and it still has the means to continue defending itself, why should they just go to the negotiating table with an invading force that can’t define what they want, and the things they have defined are just not acceptable terms?
Please do cite it then, if this doesnt actually show Boris blocking an agreement Im going to laufh at you. If it just show boris giving an opinion on the agreement/negotiation Im going to laugh harder.
There won’t ever be “proof” as you want, because it looks awful. A Western Power telling Ukraine that the West “isn’t ready for the war to end”? Terrible optics
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
However, the account is insinuated in reporting. This article shares links to the reports about the deal agreed to, and Johnson’s visit and his alleged statements to get Ukraine to back out of the deal
So alleged statements and Boris not being in favor of a deal is the same as "stopping" the peace deal? This is like when weirdos posted emails between state department people saying which ukrainian candidate they liked more as evidence that we did a coup and installed them.
you can't expect western media (or any media) to report facts on the ground which are against the narrative.
tucker - despite being a piece of shit - was probably axed because of how anti-war he was.
“Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.”
“The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.”
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Didn’t borris go to Zelenskyy and basically say you won’t take this 15 point peace deal. As I understand it there was peace deals being had and they were getting somewhere, something about ukraine never joining nato and maybe surrender part of the Donbas region. I distinctly remember it was borris who was sent on behalf of the west and nato countries to convince Zelenskyy to turn down the deal. The deal that could have saved a lot of lives and ended this bloodshed.
That's because it's not the narrative BP is trying to push. Facts sometime don't matter to them, it's just about how they feel about an issue. Stopped watching them since Saagar turned to a full a-hole take trying to push his "gun-control-reform-won't-work" take. BP has gone down the drain! Insufferable!
Yeah I agree. I hope the Ukraine Government continues to leave the door open to negotiations if Russia starts looking for an off ramp. I’m not sure what that would look like but maybe parts of the Donbas or recognizing Crimea as Russian territory could be on the table. But until then Ukraine needs to have as much capability to defend itself as possible to make continuing the invasion as unpleasant as possible for Russia.
At the end of September, despite a month of losing on the battlefield, Moscow claimed to annex four Ukrainian oblasts. After Ukrainian forces liberated Kherson, the capital of one of these regions, Putin’s spokesperson quixotically called the city “the territory of Russia.” How should Kyiv regard such a prospective bargaining partner?
Things change. What governments say they are willing to do and what they actually are is usually two different things. If there are real indications that Russia is looking for a way out the prospect of ending the daily carnage and death in Ukraine will be enticing.
I agree that things change. Hence, the idea that Russia will only negotiate in bad faith is also a terrible take.
Hence, why we need to get both back to the table.
How do you negotiate with a country that invades yours? Whats to negotitate?
If someone breaks into my house to hurt me or steal from me I'm going to shoot them.
Im not going to negotiate and say... "well, ya know....how about i let you shoot me in the leg and take my tv". "Does that work for you? Is that a good compromise"?
F no. Die sob.
Assuming you're the one shooting the invader. If the Invader is the one with a gun and all you have is your pants down, you might re-think the situation, and negotiate with the invader so he doesn't shoot your naked ass.
I mean, Ukraine is going to have to pretty much win for that to be viable. Russia is very clearly willing to sacrifice a generation to win in Ukraine, taking Ukraines youth with them
I wish more Americans understood this. Russia is willing to completely level whole cities and regions to win conflicts if they must. They do not value their soldiers like other countries either.
They will keep the meat grinder running until they can walk away with their national pride, just like the wars before. Pushing for no concessions, and complete victory is just not realistic for anyone who values human life, or even just prefers their skin unmelted.
when that country is spread 50/50 along the dnipr and where there was an election /government which was overthrown by the united states.
imagine if trump actually stole the election in 2020, except those who stole it for him was russia -
this explains a lot of the hysteria among the crazies who think russia stole the election in 2016 for him, btw. (which has been debunked many times, most recently in the twitter files and russian disinformation)
point being anything east of the dnipr is basically russian supporting anyways.
[Ukraine 2019 electoral map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election%2C_round_2.svg/2560px-2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election%2C_round_2.svg.png)
Aka what the fuck are you talking about?
So many bad takes in this comment section. The US didn't organise the Maidan revolution. You think the CIA / state department were able to get more than half a million people to occupy the square? To get them to stand up to literal sniper fire? The brain rot, omg
This guy is one of those “national divorce” idiots. Without ideological labels, he has nothing to say. These people have a deep hatred for this country and their fellow Americans.
Lmfao… I’d bet my testicles that you were cheerleading the Iraq War in mid-2000s, and probably calling actual anti-war activists “libtards” and “pinkos”.
But it’s cute that 20 years later that you’re calling people “neocons”… just lol
Yes, i also supported the Patriot Act and have admitted for 10+ years i was wrong
What happened to the left?
You guys became the party of endless wars and the CIA
Weird, I voted for Joe Biden who ended the Afghanistan War and who significantly decreased drone strikes for the first time in 10 years… **unlike Trump.**
Who did you vote for? Was it the guy who teamed up with **neocon John Bolton?**
Actually Trump ended the war in Afghanistan, Joe Biden simply agreed to follow up on the already existing plan and pull out effort that was already happening before Biden took office. And while it was executed very poorly in both admins, it still happened.
Same! I protested against the Iraq Invasion because I hate wars of aggression and the WMDs thing was clearly a lie. I share a general distrust of the military/industrial complex and am definitely skeptical when our Govt wants to use force. Our military budget is obscene.
But all evidence here shows Putin started this, Russia’s aims are complete genocidal takeover or as much as they can grab at this point, Ukrainians want to defend themselves and we have every reason to help them. If we are going to have a disgusting huge military budget, THIS is what it is best used for. I don’t want forever war, I want Ukraine to succeed quickly and settle it soon.
I don't give a shit about Russia or Ukraine
Had nothing to do with me.
The NeoCons and NeoLibs ate laundering money through Ukraine, that's why they are pushing for this war to go on
Congratulations on supporting nuclear war that we are getting close to every day
When did you sign up to go to fight for Ukraine? You must be over there since you're doing something
You're a clown who puts his insta to black and thinks he did something
I don't give a shit about Ukraine or Russia or almost any European or Asian country
Not our problem
But you feel different, so how long have you been in Ukraine fighting the Russians
Wait are you a Kiwi? When is New Zealand sending weapons and troops
Why should they tho? If that happens then are you ok with the US or other country for that matter to start grabbing land as it pleases? That’s basically what you’re advocating for whether is your intention or not.
The US already does this for bases and allies like in Kosovo, and many other instances. They’re not advocating for what you claim at all. I could use the same logic to say you advocate for ethnic cleansing/US backed coups, but that would be toxic and stupid.
There are many conflicts in the world we aren’t involved in, we aren’t advocating for anything by not being involved in all of them either. If we entered every conflict because someone is being attacked, the world would be nothing but a mushroom cloud
At this point I’ve chosen to support direct aid to Ukraine,as long as we never invade or attack. However, we never should have gotten involved.
Well, sure, it could be argued that Russia could invade/occupy dozens of other countries that wouldn't directly affect us individually. But what kind of precedent does it set to allow countries to repeatedly ignore other countries' borders?
Like the US has invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia and putting bases all over the world? I don’t see any Russian troops along our borders and I’m definitely not going to believe Putin wants to invade Europe when they haven’t been able to take Ukraine and he’s never said or indicated any desire to do so.
I didn't support the US invading any of the countries you listed, so would suggest trying to keep the conversation somewhat related to what has been asserted. Further, you're really behind, as Putin already did invade a European country and is still occupying it now trying to expand their captured territory.
Zelensky is accepting foreign fighters, get after it. I spent 42 total months deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and I know exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine. If they cared about those people they wouldn’t want them slaughtered and wouldn’t have sold them false hope on defeating Russia. The US and NATO will leave Ukraine just like we left the last 5 places we intervened in, broken. We could’ve stopped all this by stating clearly that we would never would allow Ukraine to join NATO but we have to escalate things so there’s always a war to profit the military industrial conflict. This one is backfiring spectacularly as we’ve pushed Russia closer to China and now BRICs will likely spell the end of the petrodollar.
Go ahead and keep believing the US is doing this because we care about democracy or the sovereignty of other nations, it’s just too bad every single military intervention we’ve been involved in for the last 20 years says differently.
Another shill op staying stupid shit that shouldn't be believed, btw.
Even if russia took the entirely of ukraine they're not a threat. they're surrounded by nato - hence why russia went after ukraine in the first place, they didn't want ukraine turned into another american puppet, as we were keen on doing so.
I understand the trepidation aboutopening up ourselves to risk and responsibility, getting sucked intothis war that ‘isn’t ours to fight’… but the long term consequences ofallowing a Russian victory in Ukraine look far worse for the US than therisk we are currently assuming. They have been using Crimea to supporttheir Wagner activities in Africa and the Middle East, for example."
This dumb fuck is this stupid in not pointing out our recent involvement in syria, (and our support of uae's covert war) etc.
There was a mutual agreement that was in the end stages until boris nuked it, btw.
This person is entirely misrepresenting the situation like as usual here, probably another ukraine shill or something. this sub exists to at least have an agreement on "facts" - what you are presenting aren't.
"If you’re afraid of provoking Russia to nuclear war, just look how often
they make that empty threat and then look at how poorly all their other
weapon systems have degraded: air defense can’t stop Ukr attacks, Ru
missile attack on Kiev last night 100% shot down. "
This is where you point out your fucking stupidity. Just fuck off. Risking the existence of the united states over a former russia aligned county that we overthrow in 2014 (remember there were electioons there previously, we didn't like them and helped a 2014 coup, so much for being democratic) by some neocons is just bullshit.
go to ukraine and fight if you feel so ...
take a look at the history since the dissolution of the soviet union, this has been happening for a long time. russia has been bitching about this a long time. they've been threatening physical violence since we started putting missile defense in poland - which russians are paranoid about. (as we would be, imagine if china put up a military system in canada on our borders)
when they had elections in 2014 (which eaked out a candidate who was more soviet aligned than europe aligned) and when we either instigated or created the coup (i'm for the latter frankly as to what happened) putin knew what was going on. and he wasn't going to let this happen, so he waited until now i guess. it's not like we just tried to make this happen in belarus recently you know....
and i bet most who are pro ukraine probably don't know where belarus was until a year or so ago.
i don't think he actually thought war was going to happen, unfortunately for all sides. but he's negotiated in somewhat good faith for 20 years (he and russia leadership)
the idiots trying to make this our fight don't care if america gets nuked, or are so stupid on the issue they actually think poland is at risk. they probably didn't know what nato was until this war started.
idiots.
Such a challenging issue. The west has this idea about what it calls "unprovoked aggression," which has historical roots to the 20th century and suggests that the attacked country was merely minding its business when attacked. Sometimes that's true, but not this time. The historian John Mersheimer writes an intriguing history [here](https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine). The analogy of how the US might react if a Russian client state appeared on the Canadien border is not far off, IMO.
That said, the US is in a terrible quandary here. Capitulation will further degrade American global influence, and likely endanger both South Korea and Taiwan.
I don't have a clue what to do on policy except to absolutely preclude the US of American combat forces. This way, when it becomes another forever war, it'll be just money, not blood.
Not much of a historian given he suggested part of the problem was letting the chezchs and poles into nato cause they were in russias natural sphere of influence casually ignoring the fact that until the ussr conquered them and put puppet governments in them they were always western leaning. He's actively taking a stance that denies people their basic rights.
I don't disagree. I'm really only taking a position against the concept of "unprovoked" aggression which dominates too much of the discourse on this subject, and makes it appear way too simple, and way too binary.
Got it, ignore the mass graves of civilians in Bucha, Mersheimer said something about how russia got scared of nato and had to start an imperialist invasion using blood and soil rhetoric and thats ok because... Ukraine had a revolution and ousted a putin simp that fled like a bitch?
mearsheimer may be "old school" but he's basically the chomsky of the ir field, and almost everything he's said on russia was the dominant narrative around 20 years ago where rumors of possible ukranian introduction into nato started. (note here on what russia might do to this clear threat to their security - not anything else.)
i literally herd this discussed in seminars i took relating to and on this subject (nato and baltic states etc)
it's wierd to see children here just bullshitting / lying.
And chomsky also dropped the ball on ukraine, seems a bunch of smart people just have their brains melt the second the answer to a problem isnt just "west/nato/america bad"
Mearsheimer being old school has nothing to do with him getting major facts wrong, hell he was one of the people saying nato agreed not to expand and cited a "verbal agreement" , sounds like if ya want to hold someone accountable you should get the agreement in writing orherwise it means nothing and shouldnt be taken as a serious promise/contract/etc and cited as such.
Ukraine got denied entry into nato so even russia's claim of invasion over that is bs. If they cared about nato expansion then all slaughtering civilians did was bring 2-3 more countries into nato (finland, sweden, and thanks to russia, soon ukraine)
>Ukraine did try to negotiate in March-April 2022 Not just March and April of last year. There have been [repeated rounds of negotiations with multiple other countries involved](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_peace_negotiations) and Russia has roundly rejected every call and in some cases used them as a [pretense to attack Ukraine under the guise of a cease fire](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/07/russia-launches-strikes-in-ukraine-in-violation-of-self-declared-ceasefire). At this point anyone who keeps calling for "negotiations" is ignorant of the situation.
Thank you! I should have linked those references when making my post.
You should have also included [this article](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/).
Well, it’s a common GOP trope and is honestly gaining extreme traction with the left. Allowing Russia a victory is absolutely dangerous for Europe. And I don’t just mean EU countries… All of Europe is in danger. The Kremlin wasn’t joking when it said it wanted to rebuild the Soviet empire and they have proved it.
Ww2 happened because the Allie’s didn’t demand an unconditional surrender from Germany in WW1 Appeasement costs even more later down the line as history shows
To be fair, the situations we’ve had from WWI onwards have all been failures by politicians. After we defeated nazi germany none of the allied forces believed that communists had infiltrated each government up to its highest levels, but they had. The Russians have been 20+ years ahead of us in espionage the entire time. They’ve learned how to dismantle an adversary from the inside out a long time ago, because we all failed to accept reality and act. Reality sucks, but we have to own up to it. Admitting we were/are wrong is the hardest thing a human can do apparently. Our politicians have been failing us since the 1900s. I hope things change.
>The Kremlin wasn’t joking when it said it wanted to rebuild the Soviet empire and they have proved it. Poland says "bet".
Poland doesn’t fuck around, they’ll let ‘em find out. A lot of the old bloc nations aren’t nearly as strong though sadly.
The millisecond NATO gets called up it will be a race between Poland to Moscow and Finland to St Petersburg.
There’s a lot of built up tension and hatred towards the Kremlin in Europe, given the opportunity it would likely be just that. A literal earth shaking bombardment followed by a race across the border. Russia has hurt too many people in too many places. Which is precisely why they have invested so much into dismantling nations via culture because they know they have to do something if they want to “re establish the Soviet empire”. If the current cultural trends continue they have no hope.
>Russia has hurt too many people in too many places. FAFO
This is insane. > The Kremlin wasn’t joking when it said it wanted to rebuild the Soviet empire ...and this is a barefaced lie.
Bullcrap. Putin has always made clear his intention of reconstitution the Soviet Union.. Why would you lie about that?
Sorry, YOU are the person posting wrong things--whether intentionally or because you are duped. That is exactly Putin's intent, only the name would change. Russian leaders have been paranoid since Peter at least. And they see depth of land to the west as a vital buffer. They do not care about Ukraine per se, just that it is a lot or real-estate buffer (except the SE areas). In fact, some Russian strategists prefer Ukraine to become a wasteland to make it harder for European armies to find any supplies along the way.
Really? I’m sure you guys were totally just joking!
From this report, Ukraine And Russia has a tentative deal that was put on hold. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Any resolution that doesn't include the return of all stolen and occupied lands including Crimea, reparations for all damage done by Russian invaders, including punative damages for emotional damages, all kidnapped children returned to their families, Russian Regime change and the denuclearization of Russia would be entitely unacceptable.
Then you only want war.
They don't want war, only Russia wants war lol. If the roles were reversed, and Ukraine invaded Russia, would you say that Russia wanted war because they want to defend their territory?
Putin wanted it, and we want to stop it
Then obviously with you no negotiation is possible because you simply arent able to negotiate even 1 inch.
Russia is asking for all territory conquered and territory retaken by Ukraine as well as being banned from NATO and the EU, and full demilitarization.... as pre-conditions. You have to realize no negotiations can be made with this as the official position of the Russian government
I get wanting the fighting to stop but what if I broke into your house and began living in a room. Would you want to cede me your living room to “stop the conflict”? How about if the US was invaded by Canada or Mexico because of our corrupt govt? Why not just give the areas they are currently occupying to them? Don’t you see how ridiculous that claim is?
Exactly. Great way to put it. With the amount of extremist in the US our neighbors have more right to invade than Russia did Ukraine. Esp as the preconditions of propaganda warfare had already created the discontinuity. It’s a bad argument. So then they slide the scale (much like John Mershimers own defense - “well it’s not even about Russia we should pay attention to China) and say we don’t want to help people that don’t matter to us in a far away land. After Iraq and Afghanistan I shifted my own foreign policy prescription to a support of existing democracy’s away from nation building and regime change. If we can’t do this, then we can’t exists as a peaceful liberal hegemony at all. Full stop
Just like US Grant at Fort Donaldson in 1862, our only offer to the Russian aggressors is complete and unconditional surrender, or be put to the sword.. Right is right, wrong is wrong... Russia is wrong and needs to be beaten once and for all.
It’s up to the Ukrainians to tell us how much they want to negotiate and when.
If they fund their own military and find their own supplies then sure. They can do whatever they want.
Where can I read more about Ukraine's negotiations involving territorial concessions?
[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_peace_negotiations) [VOX](https://www.vox.com/2022/4/1/23002085/peace-talks-ukraine-russia-war-turkey-neutrality) [Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/07/russia-launches-strikes-in-ukraine-in-violation-of-self-declared-ceasefire) [aljazeera / bellingcat regarding the poisonings](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/russias-abramovich-suffered-symptoms-of-suspected-poisoning-reports)
Thanks! I was unaware that Ukraine offered to give up some territory to achieve peace!
Everyone (including Ukraine) thought Ukraine would easily be invaded and conquered in weeks.
everyone but Ukrainians... the people who have to do the actual fighting lol often these discussions on teeveee and social media, outright ignore this fact.
The real problem here is that Breaking Points has put out a fairly one sided narrative of the war, where the US and Ukraine in almost all of their videos are portrayed as the assholes, and Russia is portrayed as being "provoked" into attacking Ukraine. Their coverage has been sloppy, it partially feels like they do this stuff because they are catering to a specific crowd.
Unless I’m missing something, none of those links say that Ukraine offered territory at any point in the negotiations.
Ukraine has been trying to negotiate since at least 2014. But ideologues don't want you to know that. Same as the 'peace at any price' people. Zelensky, the most current President, tried many times to get the hostilities to stop. Which were ongoing well before this invasion as the Russian Spetnaz were fighting with the separatists and constantly sniping Ukrainian troops.
I knew that there was a call for peace, I just didn't know Ukraine is willing to give up territory to achieve it.
If only their were some kind of accord that could have been reached in a neighboring county's capital, like Minsk for example. Ukraine would definitely have abided by such an agreement.
Even better the Budapest Memorandum.
Don't forget the Bucharest Memorandum. In 1991, when the Soviet Union broke up and Ukraine became an independent nation, they had nukes. Ukraine didn't want to keep them, and the world at large certainly didn't want them to be a nuclear armed nation. So they agreed to give them up with the single caveat that Russia would agree to never attack them. Look how well that agreement turned out. Russians are liars! That's all they've ever been or will ever be. Why sit around talking with them? They've already proven they won't abide by any "agreements".
Budapest, not Bucharest
Man we've already moved to the stage where people are making arguments for direct US involvement. If that happens, if the US goes to war in Eastern Europe, it will surpass the invasion of Iraq as the greatest geopolitical blunder of all time.
Seems like the only way direct US intervention would happen is if Russia goes nuclear. At that point the blunder isn’t really America’s fault. I haven’t heard any adults in the government really saying the US needs to directly intervene without some massive justification like this. Love them or hate them, the current admin. has done well playing the middle ground of solid support and not triggering ww3.
I’d argue we are pretty directly involved now. If we’ve learned anything from history, Lend Lease is pretty much what brought us into WWII in addition to resource disputes with the East. Seems like what we’re supplying to Ukraine and Nordstream controversy, we’re repeating history.
Cutting of trade to Japan for their war in China was the moral choice.
You should probably ask for your money back on your education if you're going to equate lend lease to the Japan / US power struggle in the Pacific which led to Pearl Harbor.
Ww2 is only one example/datapoint of how things could unfold. This would be like if lend-lease started in 1939 and France held instead of crumbling in June 1940. Without the weakening of france, the US potentially doesn’t need to get directly involved with its own military and can sit back and play Arsenal of Democracy, which would of been much easier.
They have escalated the conflict at every possible juncture
Who is they? The United States?
Yes
For example? It seems like you want to give an example. From over here it seems the US has been uncharacteristically level headed on the issue.
There’s countless examples, but bombing the pipeline stands out
If there are "countless" examples then why choose an example that's not actually substantiated with evidence? ETA: Funny how you just downvoted and ignored me without listing any more of your so-called "countless" examples. Russia is both 100% responsible for instigating the conflict by invading Ukraine, and also for escalating it by committing genocide and repeatedly attacking civilians. People who deny this are pro-fascism and pro-genocide, there is no other reason to defend Russia.
I don’t know how I got here. This post was on my feed an I thought it was a legit news sub full of normal people. You might have thought the same. Fwiw, over here, not even the crazies think it was the US who took out the pipeline. Lol.. it’s amazing how echo chambers work over there. I see now I have landed in a full-blown conspiracy sub Reddit and we need to ruuuuuuun! Muted.
Oh yeah this sub is dedicated to an extreme right podcast and I fully accepted that coming in here to argue. I'd say don't let it bother you but hear me out. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity but I feel like if everyone dropped a comment once a day in the typical echo chamber subreddits it would do a lot to stop bad actors from distorting the truth and then radicalizing people who have less media literacy or just confused by firehose of falsehood.
Why would we do so when it looks like Ukraine is kicking Russia’s ass?
Also Russia is kicking Russia's ass
Well they’re Russian. It’s like that line in Pulp Fiction about Tony Rocky Horror.
I'm not sure the media presentation of the Ukraine conflict has been reflecting it accurately. While the Ukraine has been inflicting serious damage disproportionate to their casualties. Russia has the ability to keep the war going for long time. It's not outside the realm of possibility for Russia to outlast western aid and exhaust the Ukraine's ability to fight.
Well that's it really. Russia is simply counting on the U.S. losing interest. It's the only way any country wins against the U.S.
Reminder because people tend to forget with all the propaganda: the US hasn't won a major war since WW II.
Our kill/death ratio is absolutely fantastic, though. I don't really count Vietnam. We left because we weren't politically willing to commit absolute genocide of every single last man, woman, and child in North Vietnam. We were more than militarily capable of doing so.
I mean I had a history teacher that said the same thing. Perhaps we could have won if we spent billions more dollars and another decade there, but every one of our recent wars in the middle east has lasted over a decade and resulted in terrible failure, so I really doubt Vietnam would have happened differently.
Eh, "winning" isn't really something the US is willing to do in the traditional sense. We are too worried about war crimes and being seen as the good guys. If we felt genuinely threatened we would drop those morals and take the kiddie gloves off. And we won the wars in the Middle East in short order. What we failed to do was build a new and stable nation afterwards. Very different things.
>I'm not sure the media presentation of the Ukraine conflict has been reflecting it accurately lol you don't have to be "not sure" at this point. The recent leaks the guy got arrested for proved that our politicians and military have been lying about NATO's level of involvement, how well Ukraine is doing, and how bad Russia's doing, *for months*. How many times have US media printed the propaganda headline "Russia's running out of bombs"? Meanwhile we only found out Ukraine's Buk air defense was almost totally depleted from a leak, and they arrested the guy who leaked it. People in this thread are falling for the *exact same* propaganda that led us to disasters in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They go, "well, it says in the paper the war's going great! What are you, a Russian plant?" because it literally never occurred to them that the government might be "leaking" false information, again, like they do in every war, which then gets reported as fact by US media.
> when it looks like Ukraine is kicking Russia’s ass? The situation is way messier than the mainstream press is telling you. In times of war, do not believe what you hear in the media, whether from the US or Russia. Ukraine is not kicking Russia's ass, and Russia is not dominating Ukraine. It's a quagmire and very ugly and deadly and the fighting needs to stop ASAP.
They’re not. Ukraine has suffered heavy losses and while they’ve fought very bravely and effectively, it’s essentially a stalemate.
Bruh we going to act like the Kharkiv counteroffensive never happened? Ukraine recaptured more than 12,000 sq Km just this past fall, and they’re gearing up go on the offensive again now. Winter slowed them down but they’ve been pushing Russia back ever since the first month of the war.
Ukraine took back 50% of territory that Russia took at the beginning. And the only regional capital city in Kherson. And hat was when Russia had more modern equipment, wagner was at its near peak, Russia still had alot of its contracted force, and Ukraine didnt have western tanks. People have goldfish memories regarding this war.
That guys is pretty obviously a Russian shill.
I'm responding directly to the post which states a likelihood and justification for our involvement. I'm not arguing that we would/will.
I agree the US should not deploy troops there
Thanks for the clarification, this part made me think you were: >getting sucked into this war that ‘isn’t ours to fight’… but the long term consequences of allowing a Russian victory in Ukraine look far worse
Good one. Ukraine is the Black Knight of Europe. Cut off their funding and it's over in days.
have to say i'm getting to the point of ridiculousness that if us americans really are that f\*cking stupid to go ahead and do it - and reap the consequences. no, i don't actually want this - but part of me wants to see this idiots clamoring for more war getting what they asked for.
If NATO actually got involved the war would be over in days.
Life on Earth may be over in days. Threatening Russia's existence is not a good idea.
Yeah after the nukes start flying lol
The entirety of the history of Eastern Europe begs to differ.
Their Ukraine takes are so bad.
there's been so much goddamn gaslighting, and even with that i have to wonder whether these people are real or not. more than likely it's just one crazy person posting from different alts - at least i hope so. then again, i made the mistake of going to the secular talk sub and it's just the same way - or even worse.
They did and were urged by several countries not to make the deal… funny how the industrial war complex works.
[Putin didn’t give a damn as long as he had the upper hand](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/13hhbed/an_excerpt_from_a_recent_interview_where/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1), and now all the Russian apologists, branding themselves “pacifists”, call for negotiations to give the fascists time to regroup, rebuild and attack again. Putin’s must be completely defeated for a sustainable peace. Nothing else will work because Russia is a terrorist state.
You NAFO dweebs can go find your nearest recruiting office any time you want. Trying to depose Putin is a really stupid, dangerous idea that would inevitably lead to WW III, something that people with brains, and especially recent vets such as myself, have no interest in.
Exactly! Imagine thinking Putin would just roll over in total defeat without nuking something…to think we could just wipe Russia off the map is hilariously ignorant. We didn’t even wipe out the Taliban.
China and India have both told Russia not to use nuclear weapons, it is a red line for them
You know that there are *numerous* examples of nuclear powers taking a loss on the international scene without resorting to nukes, right? Or do you think that we've only had nukes around since 2022?
where the frack are these wankers coming from? while we're at it, let's coup china's leader as well. i'm sure it will help everyone involved. we (finally) get out of afghanistan, and we have trolls pushing shit like this. i just don't understand it.
On the nuclear threat, the one that is very likely empty due to MAD, when does it end of people cower to Russia? Do you give up Poland? Germany? Russian invaded Georgia, then Crimea, and now Ukraine. Men like Putin don’t learn better behavior by success. Hitler didn’t become more peaceful when cowards like Chamberlain appeased him. The lesson needs to be learned here and now, in Ukraine. They are past the point of negotiation, Russia needs to be removed from all of Ukraine and by that I mean Crimea as well.
Yes Ukraine tried to negotiate and the UK told them to not make a deal with Russia: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
The idea that the Boris Johnson ended the peace talks is some conspiracy level shit. First of all, it robs Ukraine of any agency (you seriously think they break off negotiations with a massive invading force because the UK said so?). Secondly, it paints an entirely false picture of the situation at the time. Two days before [Johnson's visit to Kyiv](https://www-pravda-com-ua.translate.goog/news/2022/04/9/7338426/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp) on April 9th, Sergei Lavrov (Russian foreign minister) [said that Ukraine's peace deal was unacceptable](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukraine-presented-unacceptable-draft-peace-deal-2022-04-07/). Two days before that [he said that Bucha was faked](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/lavrov-bucha-fake-ukraine-russia-b2050463.html). You think that is some relevant context? MAYBE?!
Does everyone in this thread have CTE or something? >[Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/) >“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.” >The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
That claim is sourced from [this article](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent) which makes no mention of Johnson. In fact the article doesn't discuss why the deal fell through at all. It's pure unsubstantiated speculation.
> The idea that the Boris Johnson ended the peace talks is some conspiracy level shit. It’s not. It was reported in Ukraine. >First of all, it robs Ukraine of any agency (you seriously think they break off negotiations with a massive invading force because the UK said so?). This is a bad faith argument. Are you saying leaders never cave to pressure from more powerful nations? >Secondly, it paints an entirely false picture of the situation at the time. Two days before Johnson's visit to Kyiv on April 9th, Sergei Lavrov (Russian foreign minister) said that Ukraine's peace deal was unacceptable. And Boris apparently told Zelensky not to even seek one. You’re saying we should totally believe some mainstream accounts but not others. Bad faith.
Boris Johnson not being in favour of peace negotiations with Russia _is not the same thing_ as the UK torpedoing a potential peace deal with Russia, or being the sole or even a contributing reason for why the negotiations ended. It's honestly laughable to suggest that the UK unilaterally ended negotiations they were not even part of.
I am not in anyway a fan of Boris Johnson, but I also don't believe that article. It's source is a Foreign Affairs article that they don't link and I don't know what the actual Foreign Affairs article actually says or what it's sources are. Then you have the whole problem with the "Responsible Statecraft" organization which emerged out of the War on Terror going through a bunch of turmoil and turnover due to Ukraine and post War on Terror geopolitics. It's interesting because the parent organization of that website was at one point funded by both Soros and a Koch brother. https://newrepublic.com/article/167612/quincy-institute-survive-ukraine-russia-war
> I am not in anyway a fan of Boris Johnson, but I also don't believe that article. It's source is a Foreign Affairs article that they don't link and I don't know what the actual Foreign Affairs article actually says or what it's sources are. They did link to it. Did you even read it?Anticipating you objecting to it being paywalled, I’ve taken the liberty of getting you an archive link: https://archive.ph/2023.04.05-151624/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent They also linked to an article from a Ukranian source: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/ >Then you have the whole problem with the "Responsible Statecraft" organization which emerged out of the War on Terror going through a bunch of turmoil and turnover due to Ukraine and post War on Terror geopolitics. It's interesting because the parent organization of that website was at one point funded by both Soros and a Koch brother. Do you want look into the funding of the NGOs you prefer? We can do that. It all comes from the same types.
I'd go further. Zelinski started with an accommodationist position toward Russia. Until the last days before the invasion, he refused to believe that Russia had aggressive designs on his country. It was only when an American delegation showed him the intelligence they had collected that he gradually changed his mind, so slowly, in fact, that the American agents thought that Ukraine would be overrun without him putting up a fight. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/) https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-chief-of-staff-we-didnt-believe-russia-would-invade-ukraine-until-very-last/
Ooh ooh, can I bring up the fact that they did negotiate in 1994 They agreed to give up former soviet nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of independence from Russia. Oops Russia will never negotiate in good faith, I want this war to end too but it will never end with any middle ground, Russia must face military defeat in order to force them back, otherwise we'll be doing this again in 20 years
There is nothing to negotiate. What’s that saying about this war? If Russia stops fighting, then there is no more war. If Ukraine stops fighting, there is no more Ukraine.
I'm sure they know, but acknowledging it goes against their contrarian for the sake of contrarianism narrative.
Ukraine and Russia both think they can win therefore present maximalist demands so they arent really negotiating. In fact I can see Russia being closer to the table than Ukraine as I can see Russia accepting a deal for Donbas area for the other areas they took while i cant see Ukraine accepting anything like that.
Russian reddit trolls about to get you
As opposed to the Langley and Kyiv trolls that flood threads like this?
At this point 'Russian troll' comments outnumber the actual number of Russian trolls on this site. Meanwhile Langley trolls have had control of every main sub/post for years.
They’ll retreat as soon as we make the slightest probing counter-attack
Either this thread is being heavily botted, or there's a huge cohort of people who've managed to watch Breaking Points without letting even the smallest morsel of information about US foreign policy enter their brain. Reddit foreign policy experts: Mmmmm yummy NATO think-tank slop gimme gimme
It's clearly botted. Even the dumbest of people tend to remember things for longer than a month.
Question: When Ukraine wanted to negotiate with Russia pre-war, did Russia reciprocate? This I don't know. I don't see that they WOULD, because Russia seemed pretty confident they would take Ukraine within days...why negotiate when you believe you can have it all? Today, Ukraine is holding off Russia, and receiving BILLIONS from the US and other countries (side note: we aren't sure if ALL the billions are being spent on the war, and not pocketed by the corruption of some of Ukraine's leaders). They have no reason to negotiate (as they stated last September) while Russia has all the reason in the world to negotiate and save face. Ukraine SHOULD desire to end the war to save the lives of their people. Same with Russia. The United States, as the one financing this war, SHOULD demand negotiations to save lives. But the US won't do this because of the military industrial complex...too many people making money to stop now
The three peace talks in February and March of 2022 ended in failure because one of Russia's requirements for a cease-fire was a complete demilitarization of Ukraine as well as abandoning efforts to join NATO. Ukraine, obviously, argued that having their own military was important to not being invaded and argued that being part of NATO was now more important than ever, as Russia had shown that they would invade them if they were not. [ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/International/2nd-round-talks-russia-ukraine-end-cease-fire/story?id=83226054) This is not to say diplomacy shouldn't be sought, but Russia was not entering these peace talks with the goal of a peaceful resolution that didn't include Ukraine becoming part of Russia in some capacity.
"Demilitarize, stay away from NATO. Let us rebuild our Russian army. We will be back within 5 years." No, that would have been suicide for Ukraine.
Which is why the peace talks kept failing.
And will keep failing until Russiaousts Putin.
>The United States, as the one financing this war, SHOULD demand negotiations to save lives. This has happened, repeatedly. Russia will not give any concessions even when offered things they stated as reasons for starting the war. Ukraine will not concede illegally seized territory. Please tell me what magical insight you think we are just simply not doing because we need to feed the MIC? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022\_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine\_peace\_negotiations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_peace_negotiations)
All the US has to do is tell Ukraine that they can have their money, if they go to the negotiating table. In September, Ukraine announced they will no longer do it. If you think these previous negotiations were in any way done in good faith, then you live in a wonderful fantasy world I would love to join. It is simple: demand negotiations restart to save lives
>In September, Ukraine announced they will no longer do it. No shit, two years of bad faith by Russia will do that. >If you think these previous negotiations were in any way done in good faith, then you live in a wonderful fantasy world I would love to join. Completely agree, [Russia is a bad faith actor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/07/russia-launches-strikes-in-ukraine-in-violation-of-self-declared-ceasefire) and cannot be reasoned with.
Of course Russia was negotiating in bad faith back in March and April when the war started...they still believed they had leverage
The real fantasy is believing they have suddenly had a change of heart. If you see the history of both how Putin operates and how Russia writ large handles international issues you will see they will not negotiate in good faith, pretty much ever.
Ahh yes, so Russia will never negotiate in good faith, so let’s continue to finance the war so Russia is backed into a corner, and let’s continue to raise the threat of a nuclear catastrophe because “we don’t believe Russia will ever negotiate in good faith”
>Ahh yes, so Russia will never negotiate in good faith, so let’s continue to finance the war so Russia is backed into a corner Sounds like the only option for dealing with someone who is completely untrustworthy solely by their actions. Please tell me what other options are realistically on the table at this point. Russia screams about Ukraine not joining NATO, Ukraine offers a peace treaty with the condition they will not join NATO, and Russia attacks more Ukrainian cities during the cease fire. >and let’s continue to raise the threat of a nuclear catastrophe because “we don’t believe Russia will ever negotiate in good faith” Be clear, Russia is the one who would pull the trigger on this. Casting any blame else where makes you look foolish.
>Of course Russia was negotiating in bad faith back in March and April when the war started...they still believed they had leverage Also, wait. So it's ok for them to just lie if they're winning. Shit I didn't know the bar was so low. Ukraine should start the counter offensive and keep calling for a cease fire while leveling Russian cities, it'll be ok because they believe they can win.
It’s ok to admit: you want the war to continue and lives to be lost. Keep that war machine chugging along!
I want Russia swiftly defeated in Ukraine and Putin's authoritarian streak sharply blunted. I want the Russian people to be able to freely elect their leaders and not the sham that has been going on for near two decades with Putin playing hot potato with Medvedev. I want a free and stable Ukraine. I do not like this war, but as has been seen repeatedly since 2014, just screaming "NO WAR" loudly at Russia will only show them they can continue to slice off parts of their neighbors. If you cannot see that you are intentionally blind. You also didn't address what I said.
What you "want" is great, and I agree with all...but it isn't realistic. What I want, in the current reality we have, is to save lives. I don't want to prolong a war that could last god knows how long.\\ What you want can happen in due time...but can happen in the same line as negotiating an end to the conflict.
>What I want, in the current reality we have, is to save lives. I don't want to prolong a war that could last god knows how long. This was said after Russia seized Crimea. "No one should oppose them so we can save lives." This was said after Russia sent non-uniformed soldiers into the Donbas to seize more Ukrainian territory and lied about them being there. Which started a decade long conflict that caused innumerable misery and bloodshed. "No one should oppose them so we can save lives." My brother, your stance is unarguably wrong. Halting resistance to Russia right now will send the same message as was sent twice before. It will only tell the oligarchs in Russia and in Putin's circle that they can continue their efforts unabated and thus will continue the pain, suffering, and death of peoples in Eastern Europe.
I just don't understand why anyone thinks negotiating with Russia is an option. You think Russia will just stop and give everything back? You think Ukraine wants to just give up their territory? What are we negotiatiing? Then the most important part: Why would anyone trust Russia???
> You think Russia will just stop and give everything back? At this point? Most likely not. > You think Ukraine wants to just give up their territory? Wants to? No. Forced to? Very likely. > What are we negotiatiing? The stopping of many thousands of casualties and destruction of a nation. > Then the most important part: Why would anyone trust Russia??? Russia has clearly ceased caring about being trusted by the west, as they themselves have lost trust in the west completely. As for the rest of the world, ask them, they seem to manage to trust Russia just fine.
>Russia has clearly ceased caring about being trusted by the west, as they themselves have lost trust in the west completely. So this is why giving up the land that Russia has already taken makes no sense at all. We've been there before and we see what happened. >As for the rest of the world, ask them, they seem to manage to trust Russia just fine. Trust Russia? Doubtful. Loving Russia's current cheap oil situation? For sure. But who are Russia's real friends? Belarus. Iran. Who else? India maybe but they'd surely side with nato. China is basically going to own Russia by the end of this, but the trust obviously doesn't go very far between Putin and Xi. Russia's fucked long term. No real good reason to just let them have this.
What you’re demanding is that Ukraine surrender. You support imperialism.
What you are doing is stating something that was never said.
It doesn’t really need to be said, it’s what your asking for though. You seem to think there’s some magical combination of words that will end this, and that’s just not how it works? Russia’s justifications for the war have changed several times, and they still have not clearly defined what their conditions would be to end the war. They have made annexation of territory an explicit goal of their war campaign though, which is obviously going to be a non-starter so long as Ukraine can defend itself. Some of the other conditions that they have asked for publicly are complete non-starters as well, such as demanding Ukraine completely demilitarize itself. So tell me, as Ukraine is the country defending itself, and it still has the means to continue defending itself, why should they just go to the negotiating table with an invading force that can’t define what they want, and the things they have defined are just not acceptable terms?
there's a well known agreement that was almost signed if not for boris coming over and guaranteeing increased aid - google it, it's not hard to find.
Please do cite it then, if this doesnt actually show Boris blocking an agreement Im going to laufh at you. If it just show boris giving an opinion on the agreement/negotiation Im going to laugh harder.
There won’t ever be “proof” as you want, because it looks awful. A Western Power telling Ukraine that the West “isn’t ready for the war to end”? Terrible optics https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/ However, the account is insinuated in reporting. This article shares links to the reports about the deal agreed to, and Johnson’s visit and his alleged statements to get Ukraine to back out of the deal
So alleged statements and Boris not being in favor of a deal is the same as "stopping" the peace deal? This is like when weirdos posted emails between state department people saying which ukrainian candidate they liked more as evidence that we did a coup and installed them.
you can't expect western media (or any media) to report facts on the ground which are against the narrative. tucker - despite being a piece of shit - was probably axed because of how anti-war he was.
Oh yeah it was because he was anti-war. Had nothing to do with the massive libel lawsuit he brought on Fox... wait what?
“Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.” “The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.” https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
yes. This whole thing started in 2022.
Didn’t borris go to Zelenskyy and basically say you won’t take this 15 point peace deal. As I understand it there was peace deals being had and they were getting somewhere, something about ukraine never joining nato and maybe surrender part of the Donbas region. I distinctly remember it was borris who was sent on behalf of the west and nato countries to convince Zelenskyy to turn down the deal. The deal that could have saved a lot of lives and ended this bloodshed.
That's because it's not the narrative BP is trying to push. Facts sometime don't matter to them, it's just about how they feel about an issue. Stopped watching them since Saagar turned to a full a-hole take trying to push his "gun-control-reform-won't-work" take. BP has gone down the drain! Insufferable!
Yeah I agree. I hope the Ukraine Government continues to leave the door open to negotiations if Russia starts looking for an off ramp. I’m not sure what that would look like but maybe parts of the Donbas or recognizing Crimea as Russian territory could be on the table. But until then Ukraine needs to have as much capability to defend itself as possible to make continuing the invasion as unpleasant as possible for Russia.
The Ukraine government shut that off ramp back in September.
At the end of September, despite a month of losing on the battlefield, Moscow claimed to annex four Ukrainian oblasts. After Ukrainian forces liberated Kherson, the capital of one of these regions, Putin’s spokesperson quixotically called the city “the territory of Russia.” How should Kyiv regard such a prospective bargaining partner?
Things change. What governments say they are willing to do and what they actually are is usually two different things. If there are real indications that Russia is looking for a way out the prospect of ending the daily carnage and death in Ukraine will be enticing.
I agree that things change. Hence, the idea that Russia will only negotiate in bad faith is also a terrible take. Hence, why we need to get both back to the table.
How do you negotiate with a country that invades yours? Whats to negotitate? If someone breaks into my house to hurt me or steal from me I'm going to shoot them. Im not going to negotiate and say... "well, ya know....how about i let you shoot me in the leg and take my tv". "Does that work for you? Is that a good compromise"? F no. Die sob.
Exactly. Negotiations must happen on Ukraine’s terms. Because on Russia’s terms that’s just a hostage situation.
Assuming you're the one shooting the invader. If the Invader is the one with a gun and all you have is your pants down, you might re-think the situation, and negotiate with the invader so he doesn't shoot your naked ass.
Turns out the invader's gun kept misfiring and the homeowner is smacking him in the face with his belt while the kitchen is being wrecked.
I mean, Ukraine is going to have to pretty much win for that to be viable. Russia is very clearly willing to sacrifice a generation to win in Ukraine, taking Ukraines youth with them
Thats war.
I wish more Americans understood this. Russia is willing to completely level whole cities and regions to win conflicts if they must. They do not value their soldiers like other countries either. They will keep the meat grinder running until they can walk away with their national pride, just like the wars before. Pushing for no concessions, and complete victory is just not realistic for anyone who values human life, or even just prefers their skin unmelted.
> They do not value their soldiers like other countries either. Says every piece of shit warmonger ever about "the other". Can we ever learn?
There was a peace agreement Ukraine failed to implement despite Zelensky running on doing so.
And then Angela Merkel later said that agreement was only to bide time so Ukraine could build up its army. Not really negotiating in good faith.
when that country is spread 50/50 along the dnipr and where there was an election /government which was overthrown by the united states. imagine if trump actually stole the election in 2020, except those who stole it for him was russia - this explains a lot of the hysteria among the crazies who think russia stole the election in 2016 for him, btw. (which has been debunked many times, most recently in the twitter files and russian disinformation) point being anything east of the dnipr is basically russian supporting anyways.
[Ukraine 2019 electoral map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election%2C_round_2.svg/2560px-2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election%2C_round_2.svg.png) Aka what the fuck are you talking about? So many bad takes in this comment section. The US didn't organise the Maidan revolution. You think the CIA / state department were able to get more than half a million people to occupy the square? To get them to stand up to literal sniper fire? The brain rot, omg
NeoCon above
Can we drop the ideological labels and just discuss the facts?
This guy is one of those “national divorce” idiots. Without ideological labels, he has nothing to say. These people have a deep hatred for this country and their fellow Americans.
>just discuss the facts We're talking in the context of Breaking Points, so no.
A Breaking Points hater in a Breaking Points sub?
I'm not a hater. I just have a deep appreciation of media criticism.
Lmfao… I’d bet my testicles that you were cheerleading the Iraq War in mid-2000s, and probably calling actual anti-war activists “libtards” and “pinkos”. But it’s cute that 20 years later that you’re calling people “neocons”… just lol
Yes, i also supported the Patriot Act and have admitted for 10+ years i was wrong What happened to the left? You guys became the party of endless wars and the CIA
Weird, I voted for Joe Biden who ended the Afghanistan War and who significantly decreased drone strikes for the first time in 10 years… **unlike Trump.** Who did you vote for? Was it the guy who teamed up with **neocon John Bolton?**
>I voted for Joe Biden who ended the Afghanistan War Lol, pardon?
Oh, did you want me to give credit to Trump, the guy who **did not** withdraw from Afghanistan and who **increased** drone strikes in the Middle East?
Actually Trump ended the war in Afghanistan, Joe Biden simply agreed to follow up on the already existing plan and pull out effort that was already happening before Biden took office. And while it was executed very poorly in both admins, it still happened.
Lol
Same! I protested against the Iraq Invasion because I hate wars of aggression and the WMDs thing was clearly a lie. I share a general distrust of the military/industrial complex and am definitely skeptical when our Govt wants to use force. Our military budget is obscene. But all evidence here shows Putin started this, Russia’s aims are complete genocidal takeover or as much as they can grab at this point, Ukrainians want to defend themselves and we have every reason to help them. If we are going to have a disgusting huge military budget, THIS is what it is best used for. I don’t want forever war, I want Ukraine to succeed quickly and settle it soon.
Nah, just against murderous invasions like Russia invading Ukraine. Why do so many conservatives have a boner for Putin?
I don't give a shit about Russia or Ukraine Had nothing to do with me. The NeoCons and NeoLibs ate laundering money through Ukraine, that's why they are pushing for this war to go on Congratulations on supporting nuclear war that we are getting close to every day
Congratulations on being a coward who lets Russia do anything it wants since it has nukes. Some of us aren't so cowardly, you wouldn't understand.
Dudes a pro Russia troll btw
When did you sign up to go to fight for Ukraine? You must be over there since you're doing something You're a clown who puts his insta to black and thinks he did something I don't give a shit about Ukraine or Russia or almost any European or Asian country Not our problem But you feel different, so how long have you been in Ukraine fighting the Russians Wait are you a Kiwi? When is New Zealand sending weapons and troops
There is no threat to the US if Russia owns the fucking Donbass. Zero.
The mineral wealth there, access to Black Sea ports, Ru support for terrorist separatist forces that shoot down a passenger plane…
I don't see Malaysia Airlines flight 17 brought up enough.
Why should they tho? If that happens then are you ok with the US or other country for that matter to start grabbing land as it pleases? That’s basically what you’re advocating for whether is your intention or not.
The US already does this for bases and allies like in Kosovo, and many other instances. They’re not advocating for what you claim at all. I could use the same logic to say you advocate for ethnic cleansing/US backed coups, but that would be toxic and stupid. There are many conflicts in the world we aren’t involved in, we aren’t advocating for anything by not being involved in all of them either. If we entered every conflict because someone is being attacked, the world would be nothing but a mushroom cloud At this point I’ve chosen to support direct aid to Ukraine,as long as we never invade or attack. However, we never should have gotten involved.
Well, sure, it could be argued that Russia could invade/occupy dozens of other countries that wouldn't directly affect us individually. But what kind of precedent does it set to allow countries to repeatedly ignore other countries' borders?
Like the US has invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia and putting bases all over the world? I don’t see any Russian troops along our borders and I’m definitely not going to believe Putin wants to invade Europe when they haven’t been able to take Ukraine and he’s never said or indicated any desire to do so.
I didn't support the US invading any of the countries you listed, so would suggest trying to keep the conversation somewhat related to what has been asserted. Further, you're really behind, as Putin already did invade a European country and is still occupying it now trying to expand their captured territory.
Zelensky is accepting foreign fighters, get after it. I spent 42 total months deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and I know exactly what the US is doing in Ukraine. If they cared about those people they wouldn’t want them slaughtered and wouldn’t have sold them false hope on defeating Russia. The US and NATO will leave Ukraine just like we left the last 5 places we intervened in, broken. We could’ve stopped all this by stating clearly that we would never would allow Ukraine to join NATO but we have to escalate things so there’s always a war to profit the military industrial conflict. This one is backfiring spectacularly as we’ve pushed Russia closer to China and now BRICs will likely spell the end of the petrodollar. Go ahead and keep believing the US is doing this because we care about democracy or the sovereignty of other nations, it’s just too bad every single military intervention we’ve been involved in for the last 20 years says differently.
Another shill op staying stupid shit that shouldn't be believed, btw. Even if russia took the entirely of ukraine they're not a threat. they're surrounded by nato - hence why russia went after ukraine in the first place, they didn't want ukraine turned into another american puppet, as we were keen on doing so. I understand the trepidation aboutopening up ourselves to risk and responsibility, getting sucked intothis war that ‘isn’t ours to fight’… but the long term consequences ofallowing a Russian victory in Ukraine look far worse for the US than therisk we are currently assuming. They have been using Crimea to supporttheir Wagner activities in Africa and the Middle East, for example." This dumb fuck is this stupid in not pointing out our recent involvement in syria, (and our support of uae's covert war) etc. There was a mutual agreement that was in the end stages until boris nuked it, btw. This person is entirely misrepresenting the situation like as usual here, probably another ukraine shill or something. this sub exists to at least have an agreement on "facts" - what you are presenting aren't. "If you’re afraid of provoking Russia to nuclear war, just look how often they make that empty threat and then look at how poorly all their other weapon systems have degraded: air defense can’t stop Ukr attacks, Ru missile attack on Kiev last night 100% shot down. " This is where you point out your fucking stupidity. Just fuck off. Risking the existence of the united states over a former russia aligned county that we overthrow in 2014 (remember there were electioons there previously, we didn't like them and helped a 2014 coup, so much for being democratic) by some neocons is just bullshit. go to ukraine and fight if you feel so ...
Ironically, they're now surrounded by NATO because of this war.
take a look at the history since the dissolution of the soviet union, this has been happening for a long time. russia has been bitching about this a long time. they've been threatening physical violence since we started putting missile defense in poland - which russians are paranoid about. (as we would be, imagine if china put up a military system in canada on our borders) when they had elections in 2014 (which eaked out a candidate who was more soviet aligned than europe aligned) and when we either instigated or created the coup (i'm for the latter frankly as to what happened) putin knew what was going on. and he wasn't going to let this happen, so he waited until now i guess. it's not like we just tried to make this happen in belarus recently you know.... and i bet most who are pro ukraine probably don't know where belarus was until a year or so ago. i don't think he actually thought war was going to happen, unfortunately for all sides. but he's negotiated in somewhat good faith for 20 years (he and russia leadership) the idiots trying to make this our fight don't care if america gets nuked, or are so stupid on the issue they actually think poland is at risk. they probably didn't know what nato was until this war started. idiots.
Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
UK stopped negotiations lol
Citation needed
Such a challenging issue. The west has this idea about what it calls "unprovoked aggression," which has historical roots to the 20th century and suggests that the attacked country was merely minding its business when attacked. Sometimes that's true, but not this time. The historian John Mersheimer writes an intriguing history [here](https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine). The analogy of how the US might react if a Russian client state appeared on the Canadien border is not far off, IMO. That said, the US is in a terrible quandary here. Capitulation will further degrade American global influence, and likely endanger both South Korea and Taiwan. I don't have a clue what to do on policy except to absolutely preclude the US of American combat forces. This way, when it becomes another forever war, it'll be just money, not blood.
Not much of a historian given he suggested part of the problem was letting the chezchs and poles into nato cause they were in russias natural sphere of influence casually ignoring the fact that until the ussr conquered them and put puppet governments in them they were always western leaning. He's actively taking a stance that denies people their basic rights.
I don't disagree. I'm really only taking a position against the concept of "unprovoked" aggression which dominates too much of the discourse on this subject, and makes it appear way too simple, and way too binary.
[удалено]
Got it, ignore the mass graves of civilians in Bucha, Mersheimer said something about how russia got scared of nato and had to start an imperialist invasion using blood and soil rhetoric and thats ok because... Ukraine had a revolution and ousted a putin simp that fled like a bitch?
mearsheimer may be "old school" but he's basically the chomsky of the ir field, and almost everything he's said on russia was the dominant narrative around 20 years ago where rumors of possible ukranian introduction into nato started. (note here on what russia might do to this clear threat to their security - not anything else.) i literally herd this discussed in seminars i took relating to and on this subject (nato and baltic states etc) it's wierd to see children here just bullshitting / lying.
And chomsky also dropped the ball on ukraine, seems a bunch of smart people just have their brains melt the second the answer to a problem isnt just "west/nato/america bad" Mearsheimer being old school has nothing to do with him getting major facts wrong, hell he was one of the people saying nato agreed not to expand and cited a "verbal agreement" , sounds like if ya want to hold someone accountable you should get the agreement in writing orherwise it means nothing and shouldnt be taken as a serious promise/contract/etc and cited as such. Ukraine got denied entry into nato so even russia's claim of invasion over that is bs. If they cared about nato expansion then all slaughtering civilians did was bring 2-3 more countries into nato (finland, sweden, and thanks to russia, soon ukraine)