• Justas🇱🇹OP
    link
    fedilink
    08 months ago

    That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.

    The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.

    As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      28 months ago

      This is just far right bullshit. They made a peace deal and Nazi Ukraine immediate reneged on it as soon as Russia left Kiev. The ignorance here is astounding.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      link
      fedilink
      -78 months ago

      The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.

      Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.

      Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:

      The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.

      The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.

      Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.

      • Justas🇱🇹OP
        link
        fedilink
        48 months ago

        The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.

        False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.

        Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.

        Western leaders? Name them.

        The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs.

        It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.

        Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.

        Because Russia attacked them.

        Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.

        If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.

        Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.

        You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        18 months ago

        NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.

        By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          link
          fedilink
          -28 months ago

          NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              fedilink
              -48 months ago

              Share a source for NATO invading Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, is that what you’re asking there little buddy?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                38 months ago

                Are you saying you can’t? Are you maybe saying that the only sources you have are Russian propaganda? Or are you just being condescending because you can get away with it on a Russian sympathizing instance?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -38 months ago

                  No, I’m saying that anybody can type in words NATO and Yugoslavia or NATO and Libya into Google and see that you’re a liar.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                28 months ago

                What I’ve read so far about each of those cases is that nato was deployed to either halt a genocide or suppress a terrorist organization. Both of those things are still defensive actions.

                Though I guess they could be interpreted as aggressive by countries that are pro-genocide and pro-terrorism, so it makes perfect sense that a Russia/China instance would be pissing themselves.

                Your fears are based in the aggressive nature of the countries you simp for, so do carry on. Nothing I say is going to convince you one way or the other if you’re already eating the propaganda cereal.