• RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I mean, Putin won’t either, the negotiations are just for gaslighting and propaganda. Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on and even without Ukraine intends to increase military spending. They don’t need it, but it’s not up to them if it ends.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on

      This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, “US has plenty of wars” -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.

      I’m not condoning Putin btw. It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants. In the end it’s Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        If America was actively attempting to annex Sonora I’d be happy to make the same arguments defending China if it armed Mexico

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about “Chinese weapons on our doorstep” would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.

          • Skua@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong.

            Or

            It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression

            It can’t be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia’s aggression.

            • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              9 months ago

              Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?

              What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.

              So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn’t happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.

              • Skua@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                So what do you do?

                Russia could stop making all of its neighbours feel like they need protection from it, perhaps.

                (mostly exclusive!) EU trade

                Alright, please explain to me step-by-step how you expect Ukraine to join two separate and incompatible free trade areas. Because that’s what the argument at the time was about: which FTA to join, the EU-led DCFTA or the Russia-led CISFTA

                Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime

                “The EU wanted a trade deal with Ukraine and Russia wanted to choose Ukraine’s government.” Why are you acting like these are equivalent?

                But that doesn’t happen

                I don’t think it’s my place to tell Ukrainians to submit to subjugation

                • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  how you expect Ukraine to join two separate and incompatible free trade areas

                  Well aren’t you explaining it perfectly? Ukraine would have to leave the one and join the other.

                  And yeah I agree with all your sentiments, Ukraine should be free. But we can also agree that Russia is not acting completely randomly but out of self interest. And also that Russia is perfectly capable of invading a country and fucking up their shit. Right? We can agree that one should take Russia seriously? And be smart and careful?

                  It’s not about Russia being right, it’s about not being stupid and provoking them. Ukraine absolutely had a right to join NATO and it was absolutely clear that they would get in trouble and shouldn’t have tried it. Fuckers like Stoltenberg shouldn’t have encouraged it.

                  • Skua@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that Russia is acting randomly. I agree completely that Russia is acting in Russia’s interests. I just don’t think it follows from that that everyone else should just lie down and and let Russia do whatever it wants, so if countries that have the power and will to oppose Russia’s morally objectionable actions wish to do so then good on them in my book.

                  • choin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    So “[A] provoking Russia was the reason, according to [B]”. What do you say, is [A] Ukraine and is [B] Putin?

              • rdri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades.

                As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.

                Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin’s struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.

          • mashbooq@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            9 months ago

            it’s 100% about moral arguments of right and wrong. just because the US’s wars are evil 99% of the time isn’t a reason to reject the one good one

      • rdri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants.

        You’re clueless. Ukraine was precisely correct in its desire for additional protection from aggression.