• 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.

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

                  Bullies also don’t have nuclear weapons.

                  Stop comparing people to countries. The scale makes it so absurd, because nuclear weapons could end the god damn world.

                  • CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    By your logic, no one should stand up to the US either because we have enough glowy ordinance to turn Russia, China, and Iran into glass and have enough nukes to end all life a million times over.

                • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  There is no such thing as a society, only individuals and families. Very true Maggie!

                  No, countries are qualitatively different from simply “lots of people”

              • 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.

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

                  NATO broke the 1997 pact when it bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, in violation of the UN Charter.

                  In 2014 Ukraine’s legitimate government was overthrown by the Euromaidan coup.

                  Before you screech your revisionist history at me, answer this: are you willing to fight this war until no one is left?

                  • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    NATO is not Ukraine (yet), that makes about as much sense as say China getting to invade Iran because the UAE bombed north korea.

                    I would think popular uprisings like in 2014 against rich oligarch rule would be more up your alley. Really though that also does not work as much of an excuse to invade another nation state.

                    I think my screeching is quite pleasant compared to whatever mental gymnastics are needed to eat what you are selling.

                    Oh and as I said above, Ukraine gets to make the call on when they are willing to stop fighting. Not myself, not you.

              • 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?

                • Redditsucks1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

            • 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?

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

                  Sorry for the assumption but my comment still stands in terms of what is a realistic beneficial outcome for Ukraine at this point? Clearly China, India (probably others) are helping Russia keep its ammo stocks and munitions filled.

                  Other than a negotiated settlement we can have either world war 3 with NATO intervening … or we can just drag this out for 5-10 years at an enormous cost and literally 100,000’s of dead Ukrainians.

                  • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Also not in the states and hey getting sick of explaining that Ukraine is the one who gets to make that call. And they have made it clear they will fight on. This conflict might have some years left but seeing as the (probably others) is north korea I think most know how it ends.

                    Oh and China, India are bending russia over right now laughing and saying “cheap oil go burrrrrrr”

          • 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?

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

                    If I were Ukrainian, then fucking yes. As an American, also yes, because with proper support, Russia won’t win and it won’t come down to the last Ukrainian. If Mexico invaded the US, killed thousands of Americans, and occupied a bunch, you think just giving some of that up would be acceptable? Fuck that. Not only does sending munitions to Ukraine help them, it both hurts Russia which is great, and boosts the US economy and refreshes our arsenal. War sucks, but since it’s happening and we can’t stop it, we might as well help the good guys and benefit ourselves.

                    All of this ignores how past negotiations with Russia have taken place, and they reneged anyway. They can’t be trusted to hold up any sort of deal, so fuck em. Best case is that civil unrest ends the war first, but until then, the only good Russian invader is a dead Russian invader.

                  • gamermanh@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Uh, the war can still end without peace negotiations you know

                    That’s… That’s what war is?

              • 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.

                  • Skua@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Yanukovych wasn’t strung up by protestors, he was removed from power by a huge majority of the Ukrainian parliament, including members of Yanukovych’s own party, and they held an election later that year. For what you’re saying to make sense, any large protest in a country would have to potentially void any international treaty that country is party to. Russia doesn’t get to invade and annex land just because there was a big protest and then the parliament kicked the president out.

        • 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.