• just_browsing@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If Russia wanted to end the war so bad they could just leave. Ukraine doesn’t have that option.

              Russia invaded Ukraine to gain new territory. If you want the war to end as it stands now, then you’re okay with giving up land and the people they’ve kidnapped from it to a fascist regime in a war of aggression. That’s supporting a fascist government.

              • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay but instead of making infantile suggestions that no one with any sort of adult mind think is even possible, including the US and Ukrainian Militaries, why don’t we talk about actually likely ways to end the war? Why are the two choices perpetual war and unilateral surrender? It sounds an awful lot like you want to fight “to the last Ukrainian”, to me.

                • just_browsing@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hmm, seems like you’re arguing in good faith.

                  I never said those are the only two choices, but every peace deal that Russia has come to the table with either includes ceding large amounts of territory or giving up control over their government. Do you think the Ukrainian people would find any of that acceptable after everything Russia has put them through?

                  Sounds an awful lot like you just want fascist Russia to conquer Ukraine.

                  • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    We may have varying definitions of their territory, or maybe we’re looking at different proposed peace accords. Donetsk and Luhansk are recognized by Ukraine under the Minsk II accords as autonomous zones, contained within Ukraine, but not subject to its laws. So, if that’s what you’re referring to, that isn’t Ukrainian territory anymore than Turkish Kurdistan is Turkeys territory. I support the right of people to self determination, up to and including the right to declare autonomy.

                    If that’s not what you’re referring to, then I must be behind, because that’s the last peace accord that I heard of.

                • just_browsing@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That all depends on what you’d consider to be acceptable terms of a peace deal. Is it a deal that rewards the aggressors for their aggression?

                  • SuperNovaCouchGuy2 [any]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    14
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No, the heads of NATO, Ukraine and Russia shouldn’t be rewarded for their acts of violence against the people of Russia and Ukraine. All sides should withdraw from the territories in which they are not welcome by the people.

                    Also Russia didn’t invade Ukraine to “gain new territory”, do you know when the war started?

                    (Furthermore its important to clarify that although Russia is a neoliberal hellpit, NATO, using Ukraine as a meat shield for their interests, is way, way worse, literally headed by one of the most evil countries that ever existed: the USA, as such, it is foolish to trust that anything they do in this situation will help the people of Ukraine, including dump military hardware into the region for disposal and testing)