Anyone who wants to can go find out the truth of that claim and they will find that it was Ukraine/NATO that broke the agreements which is literally the reason it came to war. This was admitted to openly even by Angela fucking Merkel, who said they only drafted the agreements to buy time for Ukraine to build up more arms and continue antagonizing the Donbas.
The Angela Merkal who urged Ukraine to stop fighting when Russia invaded Crimea? The Angela Merkal who routinely advocated appeasement?
As far as Ukraine breaking the agreement, I assume you mean the accusation of continued shelling? When even the DPR claimed responsibility for fighting as well, claiming Minsk 2 did not apply to Donetsk.
You still haven't answered: what should Ukraine negotiate for? Given the fact that Russia has broken every treaty on Ukrainian borders since 1995, why should Ukraine trust another negotiation?
They should negotiate to stop the mass murder going on.
What does that look like? A dissolution of the russian federation, complete Russian disarmament, ane the imprissonment of Vladimir Putin would stop this. Why isn't Russia offering that? Why aren't you suggesting that?
What do the people of Ukraine get from negotiating with Russia? Why should they trust Russia to uphold an agreement when Russia has already broken every agreement?
Give concrete answers or admit you don't have any.
What does that look like? A dissolution of the russian federation, complete Russian disarmament, ane the imprissonment of Vladimir Putin would stop this. Why isn't Russia offering that? Why aren't you suggesting that?
Give concrete answers or admit you don't have any.
Here's your concrete answer for your concrete answer; The complete dissolution of the federal government of the United States of America and complete balkanization of the country resulting in every state becoming their own country. The complete liquidation of the Armed Forces and the nuclear armaments program of the United States. And the imprisonment of every living American president and federal politician for crimes against humanity.
This and the same actions performed to each and every NATO country is required for world peace.
Why isn't NATO offering that? Why aren't you suggesting this?
I'm not suggesting any thing. I'm asking what the people calling for Ukrainian negotiation are asking for. So far, no answer has been given. Unless this is your actual answer, that Ukraine should enter into negotiations with Russia for the breakup of all NATO states, in which case I question how what Ukraine gets out of that and how Russia would make it happen.
Do you have an actuall suggestion af what Ukraine should negotiate for, and how the resulting treaty should be enforced?
The people of Ukraine get an end to the war. The people of Donbas get to secede from the ethnostate Ukraine has become. Seems better than current conditions
I think actually participating in negotiations and negotiating for regional referendums under non-wartime conditions would be a good idea that would benefit the people of Ukraine, and whatever the imaginary entity of "Ukraine itself" feels about potentially being cut up is irrelevant because countries are not people.
This isn't a suggestion, its a prompt. If this isn't the solution to end the killing, what is? Do you have an answer? What should Ukraine negotiate for?
what? they should accept the Russian offers to negotiate for a settlement and actually go to talks. after that, they should abide by the terms of the agreement, unlike the last several times.
As mentioned, Russia has a much longer history of violating agreements on Ukrainian borders.
what are you talking about? over the past 10 years, it's been Ukraine violating the accords, ever since the Maidan coup. I'm not saying there weren't also violations by the separatist factions but those have been tit-for-tat actions in response to shelling.
And anyway what does Ukraine get from negotiations that it wouldn't get from Russian withdrawal?
an immediate cease fire that doesn't require a winning a war they're never going to win?
Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation
The Budapest Memorandum
The Sochi Accords
Treaty on the Russia-Ukraine State Border
The Minsk Agreement
The Second Minsk Agreement
Which of these was violated by Ukraine, and in what way?
A ceasefire in exchange for what? What does Ukraine give up for a ceasefire? What terms of a peace treaty do you think are benificial to the people of Ukraine?
What terms of a peace treaty do you think are benificial to the people of Ukraine?
What's best for the Ukraine?
Neutrality and recognition of Novorossiya in exchange for an end to hostilities.
or
Neutrality and recognition of Novorossiya in exchange for an end to hostilities, after a couple of years and a couple of hundred thousand dead.
Those are the realistic options. There's no probable scenario in which the Kiev government is able to conquer all of Novorossiya, genocide the Russian-speaking population, extradite Putin to the Hague, join NATO, the EU and get a pony. The only thing the west has to offer the Ukrainian people is more suffering.
Russia has a much longer history of violating agreements on Ukrainian borders. Why would this time be different?
Oh, please. The West's history of breaking agreements goes back way further. Merkel, Poroshenko, and others actively boasted about how the Minsk Agreements were designed to buy Ukraine time to re-arm, and weren't serious attempts at peace. There's something like two centuries of Western countries breaking promises made to everybody and everyone. Russia has no reason to negotiate with the West anymore because they are obviously completely unwilling to keep their promises.
Ukraine is the one making peace impossible. They are the ones that demand total withdrawal of Russia before the peace negotiations can even begin. That is absurd. You aren't stupid, so you also know that's absurd. Everybody who wasn't born yesterday knows that this will never happen, because then Russia will give up its leverage that cost it thousands of lives to obtain. A demand for peace with terms that are hilariously absurd is, effectively, a demand for war.
The absolute minimum that Ukraine must do is give up its claims over Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, and never join NATO. This is the bedrock, the non-negotiable foundation. From this point on, it's a give-and-take. Russia may give up any objections to Ukraine joining the EU, or purging some of its Nazi elements. We shall see. Ukraine's position gets worse and worse the more of its military is degraded as it loses leverage, so perhaps the concept of a "peace negotiation" might be a pipe dream as there will be nothing left of the Ukrainian government with which to negotiate peace, or Russia will simply be dictating terms. If Ukraine made peace earlier, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive, they would have more leverage, and the country would be in a better position for the future.
Alas, according to the West and western liberals, they must all die, to the last Ukrainian, for some abstract notion of "sticking it to the man in the Kremlin!" or "freedom and democracy" or "anti-authoritarianism". Truly showing us communists who cares about Ukrainian lives.
do you have a compilation of sources regarding these treaties? it's a beast to search for as NATO justifications dominate the search results and I don't want to reply with disinfo.
The very first term was Minsk 1 then Minsk 2, they could've walked away with giving more autonomy to those two oblasts but they didn't. Russia invades and is close to their capital, this proposal would've been 'No NATO, and Russia takes Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts from them. Since then Russia decided to add 2 more.
I know that you guys love fallacies so here's one it's called the sunk-cost fallacy.
If this war is following the same trajectory then Russia will add two more oblasts to their new demands, and so on and so on. Ukraine is not winning, and since they are entirely dependant on foreign help they will only grow weaker and weaker. Ukraine should've just from a purely self preservation point of view accepted russian terms. The people should demand that the government accept those terms because all that is currently happening is that more people get thrown into a meatgrinder but I guess you know sanctity of nations and all that.
No you dumb clown, the point is having a display tag declaring what gender you are prevents you from being accidentally misgendered because otherwise you are an anonymous account on the net
I literally just said that Ukraine doesn't have to surrender to all Russian terms because they still have leverage. They had more leverage last autumn and could have negotiated for still controlling Kherson and Zaporozhye, but then decided to keep going. They will have less and less leverage as time goes by, until at the end of the war when they will have to surrender to all Russian terms. This insistence on Ukraine never surrendering, never negotiating bEcAuSe RuSsIa ShOuLd ReTrEaT fIrSt, as if that's how any war in human history has ever worked, is what is damaging Ukraine more.
Maybe they shouldn't be losing the fucking war then? Maybe they and their NATO handlers, with the absolute mountain of steel that they're piping into Ukraine, shouldn't have ran soldiers and equipments into minefields for two months with almost literally no gain whatsoever? I don't know what to say to you, really. They decided to stay in the war in autumn at the apex of their military gains in Kharkiv and Kherson and so Russia built up defenses because the war was continuing instead of ending, as they were obviously going to do because they also want to win the war. Ukraine was the ones who decided, with the West's urging, to ditch the peace deal that they were writing up with Russia in April 2022. They decided to keep shelling the Donbass instead of allowing them more autonomy. They decided to overthrow the government and set fire to pro-Russians inside buildings in 2014, with America's help, to form an explicitly anti-Russian, fascist regime instead of anything constructive. This isn't a mere situation of an imperialist metropole assaulting its colonial possession for being too uppity, Russia tried repeatedly to solve the conflict diplomatically in such a way that this war didn't have to happen.
If Ukraine miraculously breaks through to the Sea of Azov (as more and more US officials are saying they can't) then maybe the foundations of the negotiations can change. Will they make peace then? Almost certainly not, just like last autumn. And then Russia will continue building defences and sending men in. And Ukraine will continue to bleed men, use up ammo, and ruin equipment until one of those things runs out. And NATO itself is saying that they're running out of artillery shells and ammo to send over, and can't rebuild the factories for years. Russia kept those industries instead of shipping their tank factories off to China (also a generally pro-Russian country, by the way!), like every other western country, those devious anti-free market fuckers! It doesn't take a PhD in military theory to draw two trend lines.
What does the West have to offer Russia to persuade it to give up its hard-fought for oblasts in Ukraine? More importantly, can Russia trust the West to not renege on that promise as soon as they withdraw their equipment? If they undo the sanctions, for example, what's stopping them from just putting them back on Russia as soon as the last tank has rolled back over the border? Mutual trust? Because, again, Western politicians have actively boasted, in the western media, to western interviewers, for a western audience, that the Minsk agreements were never serious, and that they were arming Ukraine for an ultimate conflict while also saying that, oh yes, we should have peace in the Donbass. That's an incredible breach of trust to just admit to, and it makes total sense why Putin might feel a little hesitant to trust any Western deal or promise made ever again.
Because that’s not realistically going to happen and hundreds of thousands more will die before you recognize it.
Unlike you I want the killing to stop, unconditionally. That is my only concern. I don’t give a fuck what country “wins”.
You have conditions for the killing to stop. That’s because you are deranged and lack empathy for the real victims of this war. Instead you abstract your empathy to a fucking nation state.
What do you think, then? What is the realistic thing that Ukraine should negotiate for? And, again, what would make it so that Ukraine could trust that negotiation?
Any promise is worth that? Even the unilateral withdrawal and disarmament of Russia? By Prolonging this conflict to achieve a goal, has Putin lost his humanity? Ending this conflict is as easy as Russia ending this conflict. But ending this conflict doesn't ssem to be worth a Russian withdrawal.
What should Ukraine negotiate for? What do they get beyone Russia doing the thing it should be doing anyway? What should they give up? And how should that be enforced, so that Russia doesn't ignore this treaty like they have every treaty on Ukrainian borders?
If Ukraine wants to negotiate with Russia to team up and exterminate the libs, sure, I’d support that.
The problem is Ukraine doesn’t get to negotiate shit, they only get to do what their NATO handlers will allow, and if you would just do your research you would get a clearer picture of what that is.
My honest belief is that currently, no, Ukrainian negotiations are not possible, for a variety of geopolitical reasons that extend beyond anything you've demonstrated yourself capable of understanding and engaging with in good faith at this moment. The most telling tell to be told is that negotiations have been tried, by the Ukrainians, and shut down by NATO. You can do your own research on that one honestly.
If you are being serious and not just doing lib brained shit, DM me and I can send you resources, otherwise, check out this dope ass bear
Disclaimer: I'm stoned on my day off, so take the below with a grain of salt, and I welcome any and all criticisms of my understanding.
Ukraine the state is caught in a difficult place. The government is led by Nazi Nationalists, Banderites, that have been propped up and funded by NATO as part of their efforts to destabilize Russia. In return for all of the weapons (which will put Ukraine in incredible debt to NATO for generations), and the coup, the Banderite government agreed to privatize Ukrainian industry which means the wealth generating capability of the Ukrainian people is being transferred to Western Finance Capitalists. Nobody voted for that. In fact, nobody voted for the war. Zelensky was elected to bring peace with Russia, something NATO and the Banderites would not allow him to make happen, and once that was made clear to him he has had no choice but to comply with the events that had been set in motion. So, the State of Ukraine is stuck in a war that its people overwhelmingly do not want, that it very obviously is losing, and that it is not being allowed to back out of, all the while being looted by Capitalist Ghouls. They can only limp along throwing involuntary (Russian) conscripts into Russian mine fields for so long, and they can only become more Fascist while attempting to prolong it.
As always, the real victims in all of this are the people of Ukraine and Russia who despite voting for no conflict, have been thrust into conflict and made to take the brunt of the consequences due to geopolitical concerns that never bother to concern them. Any solution would involve an immediate ceasefire which I'm positive Russia would agree too, and which I'm equally positive NATO and the Banderites would not, without major concessions that Russia can not (geopolitically) agree to.
Putting aside the factual errors, let's just think about the thrust of your argument for a minute. Wars are ended by diplomacy. You're saying Russia can't honor agreements (nonfactually, but hey). Therefore, this war can never end. Is that really your conclusion? What's your expected endgame?
What should Ukraine negotiate for? What does Ukraine get in exchange for territorial surrender?
So far, Putin has broken and ignored:
If a new treaty were to be negotiated, why would Ukraine expect Putin to follow it? What would be the consequences if he did not?
Putin broke the Minsk Agreements, huh?
Anyone who wants to can go find out the truth of that claim and they will find that it was Ukraine/NATO that broke the agreements which is literally the reason it came to war. This was admitted to openly even by Angela fucking Merkel, who said they only drafted the agreements to buy time for Ukraine to build up more arms and continue antagonizing the Donbas.
The Angela Merkal who urged Ukraine to stop fighting when Russia invaded Crimea? The Angela Merkal who routinely advocated appeasement?
As far as Ukraine breaking the agreement, I assume you mean the accusation of continued shelling? When even the DPR claimed responsibility for fighting as well, claiming Minsk 2 did not apply to Donetsk.
You still haven't answered: what should Ukraine negotiate for? Given the fact that Russia has broken every treaty on Ukrainian borders since 1995, why should Ukraine trust another negotiation?
They should negotiate to stop the mass murder going on.
Some hypothetical war in the future is not worth butchering millions now. That’s deranged thinking - literally ensuring the harm you claim to fear.
Stop thinking of countries as people. Countries are not people. That fallacy leads you to deranged ideas that see so many people die.
What does that look like? A dissolution of the russian federation, complete Russian disarmament, ane the imprissonment of Vladimir Putin would stop this. Why isn't Russia offering that? Why aren't you suggesting that?
What do the people of Ukraine get from negotiating with Russia? Why should they trust Russia to uphold an agreement when Russia has already broken every agreement?
Give concrete answers or admit you don't have any.
Here's your concrete answer for your concrete answer; The complete dissolution of the federal government of the United States of America and complete balkanization of the country resulting in every state becoming their own country. The complete liquidation of the Armed Forces and the nuclear armaments program of the United States. And the imprisonment of every living American president and federal politician for crimes against humanity.
This and the same actions performed to each and every NATO country is required for world peace.
Why isn't NATO offering that? Why aren't you suggesting this?
I'm not suggesting any thing. I'm asking what the people calling for Ukrainian negotiation are asking for. So far, no answer has been given. Unless this is your actual answer, that Ukraine should enter into negotiations with Russia for the breakup of all NATO states, in which case I question how what Ukraine gets out of that and how Russia would make it happen.
Do you have an actuall suggestion af what Ukraine should negotiate for, and how the resulting treaty should be enforced?
do you know what a ceasefire is?
The people of Ukraine get an end to the war. The people of Donbas get to secede from the ethnostate Ukraine has become. Seems better than current conditions
So, the negotiation you think Ukraine should enter in to is a surrender to Russian terms?
I think actually participating in negotiations and negotiating for regional referendums under non-wartime conditions would be a good idea that would benefit the people of Ukraine, and whatever the imaginary entity of "Ukraine itself" feels about potentially being cut up is irrelevant because countries are not people.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This isn't a suggestion, its a prompt. If this isn't the solution to end the killing, what is? Do you have an answer? What should Ukraine negotiate for?
an end to the fighting
How? There are many ways to do that.
Whats your actual suggestion that Ukraine shoule negotiate for?
what? they should accept the Russian offers to negotiate for a settlement and actually go to talks. after that, they should abide by the terms of the agreement, unlike the last several times.
As mentioned, Russia has a much longer history of violating agreements on Ukrainian borders. Why would this time be different?
And anyway what does Ukraine get from negotiations that it wouldn't get from Russian withdrawal?
what are you talking about? over the past 10 years, it's been Ukraine violating the accords, ever since the Maidan coup. I'm not saying there weren't also violations by the separatist factions but those have been tit-for-tat actions in response to shelling.
an immediate cease fire that doesn't require a winning a war they're never going to win?
Which of these was violated by Ukraine, and in what way?
A ceasefire in exchange for what? What does Ukraine give up for a ceasefire? What terms of a peace treaty do you think are benificial to the people of Ukraine?
What's best for the Ukraine?
Neutrality and recognition of Novorossiya in exchange for an end to hostilities.
or
Neutrality and recognition of Novorossiya in exchange for an end to hostilities, after a couple of years and a couple of hundred thousand dead.
Those are the realistic options. There's no probable scenario in which the Kiev government is able to conquer all of Novorossiya, genocide the Russian-speaking population, extradite Putin to the Hague, join NATO, the EU and get a pony. The only thing the west has to offer the Ukrainian people is more suffering.
Oh, please. The West's history of breaking agreements goes back way further. Merkel, Poroshenko, and others actively boasted about how the Minsk Agreements were designed to buy Ukraine time to re-arm, and weren't serious attempts at peace. There's something like two centuries of Western countries breaking promises made to everybody and everyone. Russia has no reason to negotiate with the West anymore because they are obviously completely unwilling to keep their promises.
Ukraine is the one making peace impossible. They are the ones that demand total withdrawal of Russia before the peace negotiations can even begin. That is absurd. You aren't stupid, so you also know that's absurd. Everybody who wasn't born yesterday knows that this will never happen, because then Russia will give up its leverage that cost it thousands of lives to obtain. A demand for peace with terms that are hilariously absurd is, effectively, a demand for war.
The absolute minimum that Ukraine must do is give up its claims over Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, and never join NATO. This is the bedrock, the non-negotiable foundation. From this point on, it's a give-and-take. Russia may give up any objections to Ukraine joining the EU, or purging some of its Nazi elements. We shall see. Ukraine's position gets worse and worse the more of its military is degraded as it loses leverage, so perhaps the concept of a "peace negotiation" might be a pipe dream as there will be nothing left of the Ukrainian government with which to negotiate peace, or Russia will simply be dictating terms. If Ukraine made peace earlier, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive, they would have more leverage, and the country would be in a better position for the future.
Alas, according to the West and western liberals, they must all die, to the last Ukrainian, for some abstract notion of "sticking it to the man in the Kremlin!" or "freedom and democracy" or "anti-authoritarianism". Truly showing us communists who cares about Ukrainian lives.
do you have a compilation of sources regarding these treaties? it's a beast to search for as NATO justifications dominate the search results and I don't want to reply with disinfo.
So, the negotiation you think Ukraine should enter in to is a surrender to all Russian terms?
The very first term was Minsk 1 then Minsk 2, they could've walked away with giving more autonomy to those two oblasts but they didn't. Russia invades and is close to their capital, this proposal would've been 'No NATO, and Russia takes Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts from them. Since then Russia decided to add 2 more.
I know that you guys love fallacies so here's one it's called the sunk-cost fallacy.
If this war is following the same trajectory then Russia will add two more oblasts to their new demands, and so on and so on. Ukraine is not winning, and since they are entirely dependant on foreign help they will only grow weaker and weaker. Ukraine should've just from a purely self preservation point of view accepted russian terms. The people should demand that the government accept those terms because all that is currently happening is that more people get thrown into a meatgrinder but I guess you know sanctity of nations and all that.
Removed by mod
You know what would solve this?
Making a hexbear account and selecting your pronouns so nobody can make that mistake anymore.
Removed by mod
No you dumb clown, the point is having a display tag declaring what gender you are prevents you from being accidentally misgendered because otherwise you are an anonymous account on the net
Removed by mod
Reporter: @uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Reason: misgendering and defense of misgendering
I literally just said that Ukraine doesn't have to surrender to all Russian terms because they still have leverage. They had more leverage last autumn and could have negotiated for still controlling Kherson and Zaporozhye, but then decided to keep going. They will have less and less leverage as time goes by, until at the end of the war when they will have to surrender to all Russian terms. This insistence on Ukraine never surrendering, never negotiating bEcAuSe RuSsIa ShOuLd ReTrEaT fIrSt, as if that's how any war in human history has ever worked, is what is damaging Ukraine more.
Removed by mod
Maybe they shouldn't be losing the fucking war then? Maybe they and their NATO handlers, with the absolute mountain of steel that they're piping into Ukraine, shouldn't have ran soldiers and equipments into minefields for two months with almost literally no gain whatsoever? I don't know what to say to you, really. They decided to stay in the war in autumn at the apex of their military gains in Kharkiv and Kherson and so Russia built up defenses because the war was continuing instead of ending, as they were obviously going to do because they also want to win the war. Ukraine was the ones who decided, with the West's urging, to ditch the peace deal that they were writing up with Russia in April 2022. They decided to keep shelling the Donbass instead of allowing them more autonomy. They decided to overthrow the government and set fire to pro-Russians inside buildings in 2014, with America's help, to form an explicitly anti-Russian, fascist regime instead of anything constructive. This isn't a mere situation of an imperialist metropole assaulting its colonial possession for being too uppity, Russia tried repeatedly to solve the conflict diplomatically in such a way that this war didn't have to happen.
If Ukraine miraculously breaks through to the Sea of Azov (as more and more US officials are saying they can't) then maybe the foundations of the negotiations can change. Will they make peace then? Almost certainly not, just like last autumn. And then Russia will continue building defences and sending men in. And Ukraine will continue to bleed men, use up ammo, and ruin equipment until one of those things runs out. And NATO itself is saying that they're running out of artillery shells and ammo to send over, and can't rebuild the factories for years. Russia kept those industries instead of shipping their tank factories off to China (also a generally pro-Russian country, by the way!), like every other western country, those devious anti-free market fuckers! It doesn't take a PhD in military theory to draw two trend lines.
What does the West have to offer Russia to persuade it to give up its hard-fought for oblasts in Ukraine? More importantly, can Russia trust the West to not renege on that promise as soon as they withdraw their equipment? If they undo the sanctions, for example, what's stopping them from just putting them back on Russia as soon as the last tank has rolled back over the border? Mutual trust? Because, again, Western politicians have actively boasted, in the western media, to western interviewers, for a western audience, that the Minsk agreements were never serious, and that they were arming Ukraine for an ultimate conflict while also saying that, oh yes, we should have peace in the Donbass. That's an incredible breach of trust to just admit to, and it makes total sense why Putin might feel a little hesitant to trust any Western deal or promise made ever again.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Because that’s not realistically going to happen and hundreds of thousands more will die before you recognize it.
Unlike you I want the killing to stop, unconditionally. That is my only concern. I don’t give a fuck what country “wins”.
You have conditions for the killing to stop. That’s because you are deranged and lack empathy for the real victims of this war. Instead you abstract your empathy to a fucking nation state.
What do you think, then? What is the realistic thing that Ukraine should negotiate for? And, again, what would make it so that Ukraine could trust that negotiation?
Trust has nothing to do with it.
If both sides stop shooting and murdering each other, any promise is worth that.
The mechanics are irrelevant. Anyone who would prolong this conflict to achieve some “goal” has lost their humanity.
Any promise is worth that? Even the unilateral withdrawal and disarmament of Russia? By Prolonging this conflict to achieve a goal, has Putin lost his humanity? Ending this conflict is as easy as Russia ending this conflict. But ending this conflict doesn't ssem to be worth a Russian withdrawal.
What should Ukraine negotiate for? What do they get beyone Russia doing the thing it should be doing anyway? What should they give up? And how should that be enforced, so that Russia doesn't ignore this treaty like they have every treaty on Ukrainian borders?
Yes.
Throwing all the libs in a giant pit would stop this too. Or lining them all up against the wall. My idea is just as reasonable
You think Ukraine should enter into negotiations with Russia to throw all the libs in a pit?
Or do you have an actual suggestion of what Ukraine should negotiate for? What do the people of Ukraine get out af negotiating with Russia?
What guarentees do they get?
If Ukraine wants to negotiate with Russia to team up and exterminate the libs, sure, I’d support that.
The problem is Ukraine doesn’t get to negotiate shit, they only get to do what their NATO handlers will allow, and if you would just do your research you would get a clearer picture of what that is.
If Ukraine doesn't get to negotiate, then why the calls for Ukraine to negotiate?
"If we don't get free healthcare in Amerika then why is everybody calling for it"
Removed by mod
My honest belief is that currently, no, Ukrainian negotiations are not possible, for a variety of geopolitical reasons that extend beyond anything you've demonstrated yourself capable of understanding and engaging with in good faith at this moment. The most telling tell to be told is that negotiations have been tried, by the Ukrainians, and shut down by NATO. You can do your own research on that one honestly.
If you are being serious and not just doing lib brained shit, DM me and I can send you resources, otherwise, check out this dope ass bear
Removed by mod
Disclaimer: I'm stoned on my day off, so take the below with a grain of salt, and I welcome any and all criticisms of my understanding.
Ukraine the state is caught in a difficult place. The government is led by Nazi Nationalists, Banderites, that have been propped up and funded by NATO as part of their efforts to destabilize Russia. In return for all of the weapons (which will put Ukraine in incredible debt to NATO for generations), and the coup, the Banderite government agreed to privatize Ukrainian industry which means the wealth generating capability of the Ukrainian people is being transferred to Western Finance Capitalists. Nobody voted for that. In fact, nobody voted for the war. Zelensky was elected to bring peace with Russia, something NATO and the Banderites would not allow him to make happen, and once that was made clear to him he has had no choice but to comply with the events that had been set in motion. So, the State of Ukraine is stuck in a war that its people overwhelmingly do not want, that it very obviously is losing, and that it is not being allowed to back out of, all the while being looted by Capitalist Ghouls. They can only limp along throwing involuntary (Russian) conscripts into Russian mine fields for so long, and they can only become more Fascist while attempting to prolong it.
As always, the real victims in all of this are the people of Ukraine and Russia who despite voting for no conflict, have been thrust into conflict and made to take the brunt of the consequences due to geopolitical concerns that never bother to concern them. Any solution would involve an immediate ceasefire which I'm positive Russia would agree too, and which I'm equally positive NATO and the Banderites would not, without major concessions that Russia can not (geopolitically) agree to.
Removed by mod
I'm beating you in a fight. Why don't I offer to give up and blow my dick and balls off while I'm at it?
Floating ridiculous negotiating points reveals how little you care about the actual human consequences of this conflict.
Correct. She has at least a modicum of strategic sense.
I wonder why she resigned when she did anyway……..
Putting aside the factual errors, let's just think about the thrust of your argument for a minute. Wars are ended by diplomacy. You're saying Russia can't honor agreements (nonfactually, but hey). Therefore, this war can never end. Is that really your conclusion? What's your expected endgame?