• NoiseColor @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t get it. Putin wants the land, their neutrality, to stop any weapon sales, for them not to join any alliance. And what does Ukraine get, besides eventual second invasion?

    • alkbch@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I imagine Putin would answer you that Ukraine gets to continue existing as an independent country.

      • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        …till the eventual next invasion against which Ukraine will have no ability to defend itself from because of the concessions.

        • alkbch@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          There’s no need for a next invasion if the conditions specified above are met.

          • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            That’s a very stupid premise. You think Ukraine should surrender now only to be surely destroyed later. You think that is preferable to fighting for their freedom.

            I don’t know what kind of coward thinks in such terms. No offense.

            • alkbch@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I am warning you now, if you insult me again we are done. I enjoy having conversations with people no matter if I agree with them or not but only as long as it remain civil.

              Yes, surrendering now is better than losing more and more territories later.

              Ukraine will not be destroyed later, it will be destroyed if it doesn’t make peace now.

              If you’re so brave, why aren’t you at the front lines defending them?

              • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I didn’t know I was insulting you. I was insulting a cowards premise. If you recognize yourself in this, it’s not an insult, but a recognition of your character.

                If Ukraine surrenders with the concessions that Putin wants they are destroyed. If I attack you and tell you I will stop if you give me everything, plus you can’t call for help, then that means you are mine. You will retain nothing. You will be under my complete control. Now and in the future. You are finished.

                You know, you can also support cancer research and not be a doctor, just like having a brain doesn’t require you to use it, apparently, unfortunately.

                I don’t want to interact with people like yourself, bye.

          • deeferg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            “There’s no need for a greater invasion, they already have Crimea”

            • alkbch@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Crimea is a different conversation.

              Let’s be serious, if Mexico was about to join a Russia or China led alliance, would the U.S. not invade Mexico? The U.S. would impose neutrality to Mexico. You can also refer to the Cuba missile crisis.

              • zenitsu@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Baltics have been in this alliance since 2004. What danger did that prove to pose to Russia?

                Ukraine and all other post-Soviet countries rushed into NATO after being invaded, pillaged, and raped repeatedly by Russians for decades or centuries. You think this is comparable to Mexico/US? Russian aggression is a top reason for NATO’s growth, e.g. now thanks to the genius “special military operation”, Sweden and Finland joined and the border Russia shares with NATO doubled.

                Get a clue vatnik

                • alkbch@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Those Baltic countries are further away from Moscow than Ukraine.

                  Besides, the US has a long, documented history of triggering regime change in foreign countries and installing leaders who serve their interests. They also have invaded countless counties, but I guess it’s only bad when Russia does it?

                  • zenitsu@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    That wasn’t responsive to anything I said. You think the difference in range between Latvia to Moscow and Ukraine to Moscow is actually a factor? That range? In the 21st Century? Against the whole of NATO? Keep stretching.

                    only bad when Russia does it?

                    You’re the only one here carrying water for invaders mate. I don’t see the US invading and annexing territories.