• KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, he would. There are lots of people who would rather bend over for Russia than think for one second. Putin has zero love for America and actively attacks our infrastructure and companies by sponsoring hackers. If you support Russia you are a traitor or an idiot.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • SpicyPeaSoup@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                25
                ·
                11 months ago

                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?

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I dunno, do you have nuclear weapons that could cause the apocalypse?

                  Countries aren’t people. The scale the work on is much greater.

                  • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    17
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

                  • danny@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Yes. That’s literally how peace negotiations work. The alternative, winning the war, precludes the necessity of peace negotiations. All negotiations in the history of negotiations are negotiations between aggressor and agressee.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                  • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    17
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

                  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    13
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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?

                • Roody15@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  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?

              • pingveno@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                21
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                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.

                • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  I doubt Ukraine will demand anything less than Russia pulling out of previous held lands

                  I doubt Ukraine will demand anything, losers don’t get to decide anything.

                  NATO has been given the opportunity to negotiate with Minsk 1/2 and the peace talks back in April 2022, now they’ll reap what they’ve sown.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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”

                  • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    18
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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?

                  • Newusername4oldfart@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

            • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              Probably the same way that’s been done for centuries? Armistice, followed by a peace treaty?

            • ebenixo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              By involving the same country that was responsible for setting up the scenario where it was invaded, and having that country also not go out of its way to cancel the peace talks that were going on, because they threatened its imperialist hegemony in the region.

      • danny@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Oh yeah cuz Putin has just seemed so open to peace, dipshit… it’s not like it hasn’t been tried about countless times. He doesn’t want peace, he just wants everything handed to him with zero consequence

      • jcit878@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        id prefer HIMARS instantly raining down on every last invader without a white flag in the sky. fuck em and the cookers supporting the genocide

          • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            What nuclear weapons? The fuel got sold for vodka money and the tritium has decayed away to uselessness with Russia giving up on producing more

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              If that were true, do you think America and its allies could resist total war? They’d just bomb the whole country to ashes.

              “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ok, and what do you think they would look like exactly? Unless Russia are willing to leave Ukraine, there’s little to talk about.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, but you’re a mad Tankie so we just ignore that. You lot have been barking up the same trees since the 50s.

        It’s the alt-right isolation types I worry about as they actually have more chance of getting into power than commies these days.

    • PatFusty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I personally dont give a fuck about Ukraine so yes. I give as much of a fuck for Ukraine as much as I give a fuck about whats going on in Sudan or Sri Lanka.

      I. Dont. Care.

      Those hundreds of billions of dollars are given to the banks to perpetuate this stupid war. Only ~5% of all the money donated to them has been humanitarian. The rest goes to the war machine.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        11 months ago

        Those hundreds of billions of dollars are given to the banks to perpetuate this stupid war

        Where did you glean this

          • PatFusty@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I dont need to post any proof. You guys dont ever read any sources anyways so whats the point.

              • PatFusty@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                How about this. Lets meet in the middle. You come up with a source that is in contrary and ill come up with a source thats in favor and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you just want a source that you can easily disqualify.

                • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  That’s not how that works. You made a claim that you can’t backup. Meeting in the middle would be if you provided a source and we could discuss the validity. If your alleged source is so weak that it can be “easily disqualified” then you don’t really have a source then, do you? So maybe you didn’t pull it out if your own ass, but instead you saw someone else pull it out if their ass and you regurgitating their shit.

                  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    What if I concede to not having made any research prior to my claims… much like you not making any research before trying to disprove. We would be even steven and we can start from the bottom. Otherwise, you are losing a golden opportunity to educate me correctly.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        How is giving dust-collecting weapons and tanks giving money to the banks exactly?

        You realize that the monetary amount above isn’t actual money, right? It’s the worth of the goods being given that we weren’t using anyways.