strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
One side didn't want to negotiate seriously. They're also the ones who can stop all the slaughter and the carnage
But while the negotiations were going on the slaughter and carnage continued. It wasn't and isn't an either/or.And now they face the risk of all risks, and thousands of innocents pay the price.
Whatever the risk, diplomacy should have been prolonged. Constantly stalling negotiation, drawn out indefinitely if necessary, would have been better than slaughter and carnage.
Yes, but the failure of the negotiations changed a regional slaughter into a nationwide slaughter.But while the negotiations were going on the slaughter and carnage continued. It wasn't and isn't an either/or.
Outside pressure and incentive could have been applied for continuing negotations while Russia was only in Donbass. Trouble was Russia wanted a fight with its little brother and the west wanted its proxy war with Russia. The arms billionaires looked on with glee, rubbing their hands.How come? You're assuming that Russia wouldn't have taken it nationwide anyway. And note that it's Russia that has been slaughtering civilians. Ukraine is defending itself.
Yes, but the failure of the negotiations changed a regional slaughter into a nationwide slaughter.
No I'm not. At all and any times wjhen the war was confined to Donbass, negotiations could have been kept going had there been a will. Too many on Russia's side and the on that of the west and its proxy Ukraine wanted conflict, however.You really are rewriting history here.
Outside pressure and incentive could have been applied for continuing negotations while Russia was only in Donbass. Trouble was Russia wanted a fight with its little brother and the west wanted its proxy war with Russia. The arms billionaires looked on with glee, rubbing their hands.
There absolutely should have been more focus on negotiations, but anyone who thinks this conflict wasn't going to result in increased defence spending is delusional. That Johnson still hasn't increased ours (or dealt with some of the more obscene bits of waste like Annington or the Ajax procurement) is profoundly alarming.
If the bolded bit had been true but the underlined bit not (just as a thought experiment, say) how would things have played out differently for Ukraine so far, do you think? Would their government have changed? Would their borders be as they were on Feb 23rd? Would fewer people have died, been displaced by now? I really want to know how you imagine this unfolding without any 'proxy war' issue.Outside pressure and incentive could have been applied for continuing negotations while Russia was only in Donbass. Trouble was Russia wanted a fight with its little brother and the west wanted its proxy war with Russia.
I've never been able to imagine it unfolding other than as the disaster it's proving to be.If the bolded bit had been true but the underlined bit not (just as a thought experiment, say) how would things have played out differently for Ukraine so far, do you think? Would their government have changed? Would their borders be as they were on Feb 23rd? Would fewer people have died, been displaced by now? I really want to know how you imagine this unfolding without any 'proxy war' issue.
Oh, I can. I can imagine it being over in a month or less, had the Russian army been better and nobody supported Ukraine, perhaps out of fear of Russia.I've never been able to imagine it unfolding other than as the disaster it's proving to be.
Comparisons to 1914 are spurious says an academic who supports Ukraine.
Historian says don’t compare Ukraine invasion with his book on first world war | Ukraine | The Guardian
There is no analogy between 1914 and the situation in Ukraine now”, Clark said. “The first world war began in an incredibly complex, around-the-houses way. Whereas in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, in 2014 and this year, it’s quite clearly a case of the breach of the peace by just one power.
“It’s a very different set-up. There’s no Balkan crisis, there’s no sequence of will-they won’t-they decisions. Europe is not divided into a binary pair of alliance systems. In Europe, at least, Russia is isolated this time.”
Clark also rejected comparisons between the current geopolitical situation and that on the eve of the second world war, one favoured by those who accuse Berlin of appeasing Moscow. “I don’t see it being like 1938 either, and Putin is not like Hitler,” he said.
“Hitler had a profoundly racist philosophy, where the Germans were a biomass that was going to expand across the European continent. A better analogy would be with the opportunist Russian predations of the 19th century – most of which we in the west don’t know much about, because they were at the expense of the Ottoman empire. The world in general is more and more like the 19th century: multipolar and unpredictable.”
That seems to be his view. My opinion, and not an original one, is that it's also rooted in the way the Russian elites see Russia's place in the world, and what they see Ukraine as meaning to Russia.Ah, so... the opportunistic land-grab of a latter-day tsar, rather than the outcome of complex geopolitical machinations.
But negotiations?
so here we go again - the war was "avoidable" - Ukraine is at least partly responsible for being invaded cos they weren't willing to give in to Russia's demands (russia having already illeglaly annexed part of their territory and kicked off a secessionist struggle in eastern Ukraine) Even if they were being "unreasonable" and if that was cos of nefarious western powers egging them on - (highly contentious) - its completely besides the point - there is no justification for invading another country. Its like saying that those people who were stabbed to death by their ex-squaddie neighbour over a parking dispute were partly to blame cos he had a point about them constantly leaving their camper van right outside his house.
please - just fuck right off with this shit.
Of course a full-scale invasion was avoidable if there had been a willingness on all sides to avoid it.so here we go again - the war was "avoidable" - Ukraine is at least partly responsible for being invaded cos they weren't willing to give in to Russia's demands (russia having already illeglaly annexed part of their territory and kicked off a secessionist struggle in eastern Ukraine) Even if they were being "unreasonable" and if that was cos of nefarious western powers egging them on - (highly contentious) - its completely besides the point - there is no justification for invading another country. Its like saying that those people who were stabbed to death by their ex-squaddie neighbour over a parking dispute were partly to blame cos he had a point about them constantly leaving their camper van right outside his house.
please - just fuck right off with this shit.
Problem was Ukraine just didn't try hard enough to not be invadedOf course a full-scale invasion was avoidable if there had been a willingness on all sides to avoid it.
If they'd accepted neutrailty, they wouldn't have been invaded.Problem was Ukraine just didn't try hard enough to not be invaded
Of course a full-scale invasion was avoidable if there had been a willingness on all sides to avoid it.
If they'd accepted neutrailty, they wouldn't have been invaded.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. it's just reality.
You clearly have difficulty distinguishing between what you consider to be a principle and the reality of a situation.Its not "reality" - its bullshit. Putin wanted Ukraine to be Russian - or a Russian puppet at the very least. Or have you missed the many many times he has expressed this desire in great detail?
And even if it was true its on a par with arguing that "if Poland had given up Danzig to nazi germany, they wouldnt have been invaded"
Yes they did. Zelinsky favoured continued negotation, but was pressured out of it by nationalist hardliners.What a stupid thing to say. Putin could have avoided it by not doing it. Ukraine didn’t get a fucking say in the matter. Idiot.
The problem is that Britain doesn't have the statesmen we once had. Bringing peace to Eastern Europe by arranging minor land transfers and the demilitarisation of obscure foreign lands of which we know little was the sort of diplomatic trick we used to be able to pull off with easeIf they'd accepted neutrailty, they wouldn't have been invaded.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. it's just reality.
Yes, Britain did. But the two situations are in no way comparable.The problem is that Britain doesn't have the statesmen we once had. Bringing peace to Eastern Europe by arranging minor land transfers and the demilitarisation of obscure foreign lands of which we know little was the sort of diplomatic trick we used to be able to pull off with ease
View attachment 329823
Yes there are obviously no points of comparison between a situation where a large European country invades a smaller neighbour in the supposed interests of a minority in the smaller country that speaks the same language as the people in the big country; and a situation where a where a large European country invades a smaller neighbour in the supposed interests of a minority in the smaller country that speaks the same language as the people in the big country. In addition Putin almost certainly has at least two and quite probably more testicles.Yes, Britain did. But the two situations are in no way comparable.
Historian says don’t compare Ukraine invasion with his book on first world war | Ukraine | The Guardian
There is no analogy between 1914 and the situation in Ukraine now”, Clark said. “The first world war began in an incredibly complex, around-the-houses way. Whereas in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, in 2014 and this year, it’s quite clearly a case of the breach of the peace by just one power.
“It’s a very different set-up. There’s no Balkan crisis, there’s no sequence of will-they won’t-they decisions. Europe is not divided into a binary pair of alliance systems. In Europe, at least, Russia is isolated this time.”
Clark also rejected comparisons between the current geopolitical situation and that on the eve of the second world war, one favoured by those who accuse Berlin of appeasing Moscow. “I don’t see it being like 1938 either, and Putin is not like Hitler,” he said.
“Hitler had a profoundly racist philosophy, where the Germans were a biomass that was going to expand across the European continent. A better analogy would be with the opportunist Russian predations of the 19th century – most of which we in the west don’t know much about, because they were at the expense of the Ottoman empire. The world in general is more and more like the 19th century: multipolar and unpredictable.”
Have it your way then. The Prof quoted above explains quite clearly why the comparison is spurious.Yes there are obviously no points of comparison between a situation where a large European country invades a smaller neighbour in the supposed interests of a minority in the smaller country that speaks the same language as the people in the big country; and a situation where a where a large European country invades a smaller neighbour in the supposed interests of a minority in the smaller country that speaks the same language as the people in the big country. In addition Putin almost certainly has at least two and quite probably more testicles.