Negotiate an end to the war. I'd support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Negotiate an end to the war.

Russia refuses to give back the lands seized.

Now what to you do?

I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.

Not an option the Ukrainian gov will accept. Nor should they.
When parts of the USA wanted to leave that was not response from the USA.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?

I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.

That sounds good at first glance. But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.

Fundamentally, I still don't understand why one should negotiate with a burglar how much they get to keep.

[+] queermunist@lemmy.ml -20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let’s assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?

America broke it first with the Belarus sanctions. The real question is if Russia can trust America.

And it can't, so I guess the war will never end. We'll argue about it for the next 20 years.

But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.

If the UN vote monitors detect manipulation then they call it off. Simple.

[–] Tarte@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You’re consistently framing this as a war between the USA and Russia. It is not. Russia invaded its neighbor(s) and held sham referendums. Negotiations must happen between Ukraine and Russia. Nobody else. Since Russia currently doesn’t even acknowledge the right of Ukraine to exist I do not see this happening soon.

I have read all of your dozens of comments. You are trying really hard to twist the words of every comment you’re responding to everywhere in this thread, until people loose interest and you can have the last say (mission accomplished?). Your replies are structured to look like counter-arguments but they don’t even address the actual points you‘re quoting. If there is nothing else left to say you simply fallback to „[…] but the USA/the West“ - irregardless of context. There is no way to argue with you in good faith. Knowing this I still think it would be wrong to have you regurgitate the imperialistic propaganda here that you‘ve apparently felt victim to without saying anything at all.

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

You’re consistently framing this as a war between the USA and Russia.

He does that because he knows Russia was wrong to invade, can't admit it and needs to make bullshit up to sustain his world view.

As everyone seems to say: Tankies gonna tank

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

twist the words of every comment you’re responding to everywhere in this thread, until people lo~~o~~se interest

Can confirm, this happened to me.

WTH has America to do with this? Thanks for spelling it out.
They simply ignored the concerns I raised about the vote manipulation, pretending manipulation could only occur at the event itself, not in preparation (which was my entire point).

There is no way to argue with you in good faith.

It's still worthwhile to address bad arguments. While you might not change the mind of the person you're directly responding to, there are likely people in the audience who are on the fence. Offering alternative perspectives and sound reasoning can help them make up their mind. Maybe it becomes clearer if we imagine the absence of counterspeech. That situation can make a far-fetched view appear as if it was without alternatives, as if it was sound and normal. Which makes it more likely to be accepted.

I'm not sure wether it matters who has the last word.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sorry, but as if. Russia is a UN veto power. And Russia would never accept UN troops sent by the West to oversee anything. And african nations won't want to piss off Putin by agreeing to this. Putin wants his anti-NATO back and this war will only end with Putin thuroughly defeated.
Not to mention that such a vote would be a farce anyway. Russia has had enough time to kill, torture, intimidate or disappear enough people that such a vote could never be fair.
And as for the money spent on Ukraine, it's but a cheap talking point to suggest that supporting Ukraine and supporting your own population are mutually exclusive. Not to mention believing that if the money wouldn't have been spent on Ukraine, that your own people would've seen that money is pretty delusional. For starters, most of the support sent by the US is hardware. And the given value for that support is the replacement cost for the kit sent. However, most of the kit sent was due to be replaced anyways, so the actual cost for the US is much lower than the figure being thrown around.