The Biden administration is asking Congress to provide more than $13 billion in emergency defense aid to Ukraine and an additional $8 billion for humanitarian support through the end of the year.
The same way anyone starts negotiating with anyone: open a dialogue and exchange demands, and then work to make concessions and compromises. They won’t do that, though, because then the infinite money spigot from the US will shut off because America doesn’t want this war to ever end.
Countries aren’t people but they’re made up of them. It wouldn’t take nuclear weapons to annihilate your household.
Russia has invaded Ukraine’s home and tried to lay claim. Now you’re suggesting they give up what was taken from them to satisfy your desire for peace.
The analogy the other person used is fair. In another analogy Russia is nothing more than a bully. We’ve long moved past the time where the advice we give is to just give the bully your money so they don’t beat you up and take it anyway.
You were using an analogy where a bully threatens to beat you up and take your money.
That’s nothing like the current situation. The current situation is a nuclear armed nation is willing to wage an endless war and we’re throwing money and bombs and tanks at the problem trying to make it go away. You’re comparing small scale things to nuclear scale things and it’s really just absurd.
You were using an analogy where a bully threatens to beat you up and take your money.
No, I wasn’t.
That’s nothing like the current situation. The current situation is a nuclear armed nation is willing to wage an endless war and we’re throwing money and bombs and tanks at the problem trying to make it go away.
No, it’s not.
You’re comparing small scale things to nuclear scale things and it’s really just absurd.
The thing with nukes is that it’s suicide, and they know it. So they just use the threat of it to get whatever they want, in the hopes that the people in charge are like you and will just flop over to their demands whenever they dangle the threat.
I doubt Ukraine will demand anything less than Russia pulling out of previous held lands. Russia will doubtless demand all lands it currently occupies (and maybe even ones it claims but does not occupy). Russia’s demand could be cast as peace, though really it involves giving a massive portion of Ukraine to Russia. And if you’re thinking that might be temporary… well, just ask Finland, which lost 9% of its territory to a peace agreement in the Winter War after the Soviet Union invaded them.
They’d each have their own demands, and then negotiations would be finding a middle ground between “Ukraine gets everything it wants” and “Russia gets everything it wants”
Why should Ukraine have to make any conversations at all? Russia invaded and took land and lives, and you think Ukraine should just give up some of that, just cuz?
If I were Ukrainian, then fucking yes. As an American, also yes, because with proper support, Russia won’t win and it won’t come down to the last Ukrainian. If Mexico invaded the US, killed thousands of Americans, and occupied a bunch, you think just giving some of that up would be acceptable? Fuck that. Not only does sending munitions to Ukraine help them, it both hurts Russia which is great, and boosts the US economy and refreshes our arsenal. War sucks, but since it’s happening and we can’t stop it, we might as well help the good guys and benefit ourselves.
All of this ignores how past negotiations with Russia have taken place, and they reneged anyway. They can’t be trusted to hold up any sort of deal, so fuck em. Best case is that civil unrest ends the war first, but until then, the only good Russian invader is a dead Russian invader.
Support isn’t a substitute for infrastructure and training and institutional capacity, and those take years to build up. All we’re doing is throwing money and ammo and tanks on a bonfire.
Russia is contractually obligated to shoot itself in the head right now, according to a treaty they signed declaring they are bound to Ukraine’s defense should an armed force invade it. I’m not really sure what Russia plans to bring to the table when they have broken every promise they have made and stolen from Ukraine.
You’re asking Ukraine to barter with the armed robber who claims ownership of your house.
Yanukovych wasn’t strung up by protestors, he was removed from power by a huge majority of the Ukrainian parliament, including members of Yanukovych’s own party, and they held an election later that year. For what you’re saying to make sense, any large protest in a country would have to potentially void any international treaty that country is party to. Russia doesn’t get to invade and annex land just because there was a big protest and then the parliament kicked the president out.
They removed him illegally! They didn’t impeach him because he didn’t actually commit an impeachable offense, they just voted to get rid of him. It was an unconstitutional move that had the fullthroated support and backing of the EU and NATO, hence, a Western-backed coup. Russia saw a Western backed coup on its boarder and saw its geopolitical rivals getting ready to plant their flag right against its border, so it reacted in an extreme and unjustified (though understandable) way. Russia was provoked into overextending itself and now the US/NATO strategy is to bleed Russia dry by forcing them to spend all of their resources on this war while hitting them with sanctions.
Except that isn’t happening, and now the war could last for years. Decades. Maybe forever, and it’ll be like the Korean War with a demilitarized zone but no peace agreement.
How many Ukrainians are you willing to sacrifice to defeat Russia?
I don’t have to be willing to sacrifice any Ukrainians because it’s not my call to make. I can’t make them fight. If they want to surrender, they can. Sending them guns and ammo doesn’t stop them from doing that. The guns do nothing without someone to use them. For so long as they don’t want to surrender, I say we should support them. How many Ukrainians are you willing to abandon to Russian imperialism? All of the Ukrainians of Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk? The whole country?
Yanukovych’s removal was debatably unconstitutional, but it’s an important point that it was done by parliament and not by violence. The parliament’s position is that Yanukovych abandoned his post.
Tell me, if it had been Zelensky in power in 2014 and he was removed by parliament in the same manner following a big protest, would you be as understanding if Romania marched in to Chernivtsi Oblast and annexed it? Or is Russia just special enough that it’s allowed to decide the politics of its neighbours?
They did have the votes and the power to impeach, but yes the procedure was iffy. To be noted though is that Yanukovych already had fled to Russia when he was removed from office. I don’t know the legal details but I guess fleeing into the arms of a belligerent state should, in my book, be an impeachable offence.
And in any case that’s irrelevant. There have been multiple presidential elections since then. Calling the whole thing a Putsch when it didn’t involve the military taking over, or the cessation of democracy, or anything of the sort, is very very disingenuous.
Big picture what happened is that the people wanted to get rid of a president who reneged on election promises (EU ties) and turn the country autocratic, they wanted to have themselves some early elections for a new one. And they got that. Call it a special electoral operation.
It’s not irrelevant - he was illegally removed from power, meaning it was literally a coup. Then, after he was removed, the people against the coup government refused to participate in the elections. Democracy collapsed after Euromaidan
Yes because they cannot win on the battlefield and have lost an enormous amount of lives. Just because Russia is adversary to the US does not mean we should send 100,000’s of young people to the grave. (Meanwhile safe over in the states we wave Ukrainian flags and call them heroes as we leave them dead or mangled)
So yes reaching a compromise even if Russia was the aggressor is in the best interest of the people left in Ukraine.
Would you rather use our weaponry and intelligence and money to prolong this war for 10 years … just to have the same outcome but 20x the number of casualties?
Sorry for the assumption but my comment still stands in terms of what is a realistic beneficial outcome for Ukraine at this point? Clearly China, India (probably others) are helping Russia keep its ammo stocks and munitions filled.
Other than a negotiated settlement we can have either world war 3 with NATO intervening … or we can just drag this out for 5-10 years at an enormous cost and literally 100,000’s of dead Ukrainians.
They don’t, they just get ready to clutch their pearls and say “well, I never…” when it happens again. These people are from the same stock that let Hitler rise to power, and thought appeasement was the best way to deal with aggressive authoritarians. Anything short of full liberation of Ukraine’s territory only encourages Russian belligerence.
You want to save lives? You make it clear to Russia this kind of shit will only leave them bloodied and empty handed.
Also not in the states and hey getting sick of explaining that Ukraine is the one who gets to make that call. And they have made it clear they will fight on. This conflict might have some years left but seeing as the (probably others) is north korea I think most know how it ends.
Oh and China, India are bending russia over right now laughing and saying “cheap oil go burrrrrrr”
Oh yeah that worked so well for them in
1997 and 2014. Did people forget that peace negotiations have happened before and russia has broken the agreement every time?
Why would Ukraine or anyone for that matter take anything the russian federation says as not a lie?
Also I think that in this case it would be stupid for Ukraine to allow russia any ability to regroup.
NATO is not Ukraine (yet), that makes about as much sense as say China getting to invade Iran because the UAE bombed north korea.
I would think popular uprisings like in 2014 against rich oligarch rule would be more up your alley. Really though that also does not work as much of an excuse to invade another nation state.
I think my screeching is quite pleasant compared to whatever mental gymnastics are needed to eat what you are selling.
Oh and as I said above, Ukraine gets to make the call on when they are willing to stop fighting. Not myself, not you.
Yes, clearly the mass protests and large scale political movement was just a ruse by the US, because as we all know somehow everything ever is always the US.
The mass protests were legitimate (though fueled by Western media to some extent), but the government buckling was absolutely not. There was a lot more going on then just “people protest -> government collapses” lol
If someone came into your country and started to rape, kill and kidnap your people would you roll over and give them whatever they wanted to stop doing that?
Maybe we should break into their home and see if they want to start peace negotiations. Because nobody calls the police when that happens. Give us half your stuff and we will leave.
It is possible to include certain guarantees within a treaty to make it painful for either side to break it, or to make breaking it extremely difficult. That’s what Ukraine would have to demand from Russia - some kind of leverage or collateral to guarantee the peace holds.
The conflict is not occurring in a vacuum. They can pretend that they are the only ones who can make that decision, but without the West sending ridiculous amounts of money in arms and support, they wouldn’t be in a position to make any decision. As long as they’re entirely dependent on others, they can’t monopolize the decision making here.
See you have an issue in that argument. Without support (as that is what I assume would be the threat here) Ukraine has very clearly stated that it would fight on. You seem to forget that the west just lost a war in Afghanistan, who had no real foreign support.
All that cutting support off would do would drag this conflict out and make it mostly partisan action.
The same way anyone starts negotiating with anyone: open a dialogue and exchange demands, and then work to make concessions and compromises. They won’t do that, though, because then the infinite money spigot from the US will shut off because America doesn’t want this war to ever end.
You tell me where you live, I’ll break into your house and steal half your stuff.
Instead of fighting back or calling the police, we can negotiate so I can have half your stuff. Sound good?
I dunno, do you have nuclear weapons that could cause the apocalypse?
Countries aren’t people. The scale the work on is much greater.
Oh okay, so if I held enough people hostage I can have your stuff? Good to know…good to know…
Literally yes.
Literally retarded
You’ve got an important word there. Scale.
Countries aren’t people but they’re made up of them. It wouldn’t take nuclear weapons to annihilate your household.
Russia has invaded Ukraine’s home and tried to lay claim. Now you’re suggesting they give up what was taken from them to satisfy your desire for peace.
The analogy the other person used is fair. In another analogy Russia is nothing more than a bully. We’ve long moved past the time where the advice we give is to just give the bully your money so they don’t beat you up and take it anyway.
Bullies also don’t have nuclear weapons.
Stop comparing people to countries. The scale makes it so absurd, because nuclear weapons could end the god damn world.
Uh, yes. Yes they do.
You were using an analogy where a bully threatens to beat you up and take your money.
That’s nothing like the current situation. The current situation is a nuclear armed nation is willing to wage an endless war and we’re throwing money and bombs and tanks at the problem trying to make it go away. You’re comparing small scale things to nuclear scale things and it’s really just absurd.
No, I wasn’t.
No, it’s not.
No, I’m not.
Well what’s that then!?
The thing with nukes is that it’s suicide, and they know it. So they just use the threat of it to get whatever they want, in the hopes that the people in charge are like you and will just flop over to their demands whenever they dangle the threat.
Do you actually still think Russia is a 100% rational actor?
So, how would a peace treaty work with a non rational actor?
Let him think he won.
I doubt Ukraine will demand anything less than Russia pulling out of previous held lands. Russia will doubtless demand all lands it currently occupies (and maybe even ones it claims but does not occupy). Russia’s demand could be cast as peace, though really it involves giving a massive portion of Ukraine to Russia. And if you’re thinking that might be temporary… well, just ask Finland, which lost 9% of its territory to a peace agreement in the Winter War after the Soviet Union invaded them.
You don’t have to guess. They did publish just those demands. https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-ukraines-peace-plan-can-help-end-other-wars/
They’d each have their own demands, and then negotiations would be finding a middle ground between “Ukraine gets everything it wants” and “Russia gets everything it wants”
Why should Ukraine have to make any conversations at all? Russia invaded and took land and lives, and you think Ukraine should just give up some of that, just cuz?
Because otherwise the war never ends.
Are you willing to fight to the last Ukrainian?
If I were Ukrainian, then fucking yes. As an American, also yes, because with proper support, Russia won’t win and it won’t come down to the last Ukrainian. If Mexico invaded the US, killed thousands of Americans, and occupied a bunch, you think just giving some of that up would be acceptable? Fuck that. Not only does sending munitions to Ukraine help them, it both hurts Russia which is great, and boosts the US economy and refreshes our arsenal. War sucks, but since it’s happening and we can’t stop it, we might as well help the good guys and benefit ourselves.
All of this ignores how past negotiations with Russia have taken place, and they reneged anyway. They can’t be trusted to hold up any sort of deal, so fuck em. Best case is that civil unrest ends the war first, but until then, the only good Russian invader is a dead Russian invader.
Support isn’t a substitute for infrastructure and training and institutional capacity, and those take years to build up. All we’re doing is throwing money and ammo and tanks on a bonfire.
I think you mean russia is throwing money and ammo and tanks on a bonfire.
Well that too, it’s why America is supporting Ukraine. They want Russia to bleed itself to death.
It doesn’t seem like it’s happening. It’s just an endless burning pit for everyone’s money.
Uh, the war can still end without peace negotiations you know
That’s… That’s what war is?
Don’t hold your breath.
For you to make a valid point?
Good call
It took 20 fucking years for American invaders to give up on Iraq.
What if it takes that long for Russia to give up?
Russia is contractually obligated to shoot itself in the head right now, according to a treaty they signed declaring they are bound to Ukraine’s defense should an armed force invade it. I’m not really sure what Russia plans to bring to the table when they have broken every promise they have made and stolen from Ukraine.
You’re asking Ukraine to barter with the armed robber who claims ownership of your house.
They were bound to Ukraine’s defense before it had a coup lol
Yanukovych wasn’t strung up by protestors, he was removed from power by a huge majority of the Ukrainian parliament, including members of Yanukovych’s own party, and they held an election later that year. For what you’re saying to make sense, any large protest in a country would have to potentially void any international treaty that country is party to. Russia doesn’t get to invade and annex land just because there was a big protest and then the parliament kicked the president out.
It does happen, that’s how the US dodged all its debts to France after the revolution
They removed him illegally! They didn’t impeach him because he didn’t actually commit an impeachable offense, they just voted to get rid of him. It was an unconstitutional move that had the fullthroated support and backing of the EU and NATO, hence, a Western-backed coup. Russia saw a Western backed coup on its boarder and saw its geopolitical rivals getting ready to plant their flag right against its border, so it reacted in an extreme and unjustified (though understandable) way. Russia was provoked into overextending itself and now the US/NATO strategy is to bleed Russia dry by forcing them to spend all of their resources on this war while hitting them with sanctions.
Except that isn’t happening, and now the war could last for years. Decades. Maybe forever, and it’ll be like the Korean War with a demilitarized zone but no peace agreement.
How many Ukrainians are you willing to sacrifice to defeat Russia?
I don’t have to be willing to sacrifice any Ukrainians because it’s not my call to make. I can’t make them fight. If they want to surrender, they can. Sending them guns and ammo doesn’t stop them from doing that. The guns do nothing without someone to use them. For so long as they don’t want to surrender, I say we should support them. How many Ukrainians are you willing to abandon to Russian imperialism? All of the Ukrainians of Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk? The whole country?
Yanukovych’s removal was debatably unconstitutional, but it’s an important point that it was done by parliament and not by violence. The parliament’s position is that Yanukovych abandoned his post.
Tell me, if it had been Zelensky in power in 2014 and he was removed by parliament in the same manner following a big protest, would you be as understanding if Romania marched in to Chernivtsi Oblast and annexed it? Or is Russia just special enough that it’s allowed to decide the politics of its neighbours?
Peace negotiations aren’t “surrender”
If they try to move towards peace they risk losing America’s support, which would turn peace negotiations into a surrender
I prefer peace negotiations over war. That’s all. It’s not about what Russia “gets” to do, it’s about saving lives.
They did have the votes and the power to impeach, but yes the procedure was iffy. To be noted though is that Yanukovych already had fled to Russia when he was removed from office. I don’t know the legal details but I guess fleeing into the arms of a belligerent state should, in my book, be an impeachable offence.
And in any case that’s irrelevant. There have been multiple presidential elections since then. Calling the whole thing a Putsch when it didn’t involve the military taking over, or the cessation of democracy, or anything of the sort, is very very disingenuous.
Big picture what happened is that the people wanted to get rid of a president who reneged on election promises (EU ties) and turn the country autocratic, they wanted to have themselves some early elections for a new one. And they got that. Call it a special electoral operation.
It’s not irrelevant - he was illegally removed from power, meaning it was literally a coup. Then, after he was removed, the people against the coup government refused to participate in the elections. Democracy collapsed after Euromaidan
You think Ukraine should make concessions with the country that invaded them?
Yes because they cannot win on the battlefield and have lost an enormous amount of lives. Just because Russia is adversary to the US does not mean we should send 100,000’s of young people to the grave. (Meanwhile safe over in the states we wave Ukrainian flags and call them heroes as we leave them dead or mangled)
So yes reaching a compromise even if Russia was the aggressor is in the best interest of the people left in Ukraine.
Would you rather use our weaponry and intelligence and money to prolong this war for 10 years … just to have the same outcome but 20x the number of casualties?
I’m not in the states, thanks for assuming that though.
Sorry for the assumption but my comment still stands in terms of what is a realistic beneficial outcome for Ukraine at this point? Clearly China, India (probably others) are helping Russia keep its ammo stocks and munitions filled.
Other than a negotiated settlement we can have either world war 3 with NATO intervening … or we can just drag this out for 5-10 years at an enormous cost and literally 100,000’s of dead Ukrainians.
How do you reach a compromise and guarantee Russia doesn’t invade again?
They don’t, they just get ready to clutch their pearls and say “well, I never…” when it happens again. These people are from the same stock that let Hitler rise to power, and thought appeasement was the best way to deal with aggressive authoritarians. Anything short of full liberation of Ukraine’s territory only encourages Russian belligerence.
You want to save lives? You make it clear to Russia this kind of shit will only leave them bloodied and empty handed.
Also not in the states and hey getting sick of explaining that Ukraine is the one who gets to make that call. And they have made it clear they will fight on. This conflict might have some years left but seeing as the (probably others) is north korea I think most know how it ends.
Oh and China, India are bending russia over right now laughing and saying “cheap oil go burrrrrrr”
For the sake of peace, yes, I think they should be willing to make concessions. That’s how negotiations work.
If you refuse to offer anything you aren’t really negotiating. You’re just issuing demands with no exchange.
Oh yeah that worked so well for them in 1997 and 2014. Did people forget that peace negotiations have happened before and russia has broken the agreement every time?
Why would Ukraine or anyone for that matter take anything the russian federation says as not a lie? Also I think that in this case it would be stupid for Ukraine to allow russia any ability to regroup.
NATO broke the 1997 pact when it bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, in violation of the UN Charter.
In 2014 Ukraine’s legitimate government was overthrown by the Euromaidan coup.
Before you screech your revisionist history at me, answer this: are you willing to fight this war until no one is left?
NATO is not Ukraine (yet), that makes about as much sense as say China getting to invade Iran because the UAE bombed north korea.
I would think popular uprisings like in 2014 against rich oligarch rule would be more up your alley. Really though that also does not work as much of an excuse to invade another nation state.
I think my screeching is quite pleasant compared to whatever mental gymnastics are needed to eat what you are selling.
Oh and as I said above, Ukraine gets to make the call on when they are willing to stop fighting. Not myself, not you.
“Popular uprisings”
i.e. western backed color revolution
Ukraine isn’t allowed to make that call. If they do, America will stop supporting them.
Yes, clearly the mass protests and large scale political movement was just a ruse by the US, because as we all know somehow everything ever is always the US.
The mass protests were legitimate (though fueled by Western media to some extent), but the government buckling was absolutely not. There was a lot more going on then just “people protest -> government collapses” lol
Thing is the only thing Putin wants is the eradication of all Ukraine.
This is a war of annihilation. There are no concessions.
Have a starting point from a man much more intelligent than I: https://youtu.be/mMZYKxgc9TE
(And a video he did 9 years ago: https://youtu.be/A2nklduvThs)
Ridiculous.
Care to elaborate?
Here’s what I’m getting from their comments:
“US bad, Russia good. I love Putin and anything that I can pretend is a communist nation, despite not even being slightly close”
I’m pretty sure Russia wants the majority Russian-speaking portions of Ukraine.
Russia wants to destroy Ukraine. Putin doesn’t even believe Ukraine should be a nation.
I hear Putin eats small children and doesn’t believe in washing his hands!
I love making things up. It’s so fun!
do you ever stop to think about how you would fare in Russia with a username like that? these are the people you think should be negotiated with
Oh I’d probably be dead or worse.
That doesn’t make endless war a good thing.
If someone came into your country and started to rape, kill and kidnap your people would you roll over and give them whatever they wanted to stop doing that?
Maybe we should break into their home and see if they want to start peace negotiations. Because nobody calls the police when that happens. Give us half your stuff and we will leave.
If the alternative was that they would rape, kill, and kidnap my people for the next 20 years without end?
I’m not willing to fight this war to the last Ukrainian.
Say they do negotiate peace, what do they do next time Russia wants to invade?
Give more up?
It is possible to include certain guarantees within a treaty to make it painful for either side to break it, or to make breaking it extremely difficult. That’s what Ukraine would have to demand from Russia - some kind of leverage or collateral to guarantee the peace holds.
Ukraine would have to trust Russia would comply and they haven’t historically.
No, trust is for fools. They need some kind of mutually assured destruction so that neither side can ever betray the peace treaty.
You are Ukrainian then? Because I think they are the only ones who get to make that call.
The conflict is not occurring in a vacuum. They can pretend that they are the only ones who can make that decision, but without the West sending ridiculous amounts of money in arms and support, they wouldn’t be in a position to make any decision. As long as they’re entirely dependent on others, they can’t monopolize the decision making here.
See you have an issue in that argument. Without support (as that is what I assume would be the threat here) Ukraine has very clearly stated that it would fight on. You seem to forget that the west just lost a war in Afghanistan, who had no real foreign support.
All that cutting support off would do would drag this conflict out and make it mostly partisan action.
Whose money are they sending over?