this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
484 points (95.5% liked)
World News
32091 readers
850 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?