The “deal” requires Ukraine to cede a colossal amount of territory before negotiations even begin. Even if the Ukrainian leadership was willing to give up all of that for peace, doing so here would not actually even buy them peace, only a start to negotiations that could collapse at any time. That’s about as diplomatic an offer as Ukraine saying “pre-2014 borders and then we can talk.”
Hmm interestingly if such language laws would been implemented in country they don’t like, they would immediately scream about “cultural genocide”, often dropping the “cultural” word too.
This is about ceasefire violations, not ethnic cleansing. It’s also amazing that they blame it entirely on Ukraine on an image that shows multiple explosions on both sides of the line on the first day. By the time the two sides have started shelling each other, the ceasefire is dead. The side that does more of it after that is not somehow more culpable for the end of the ceasefire.
Literally none of these links are about ethnic cleansing. War crimes? Possibly. Use of particularly nasty weapons? Yes. Ethnic cleansing? No.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
Ukraine has repeatedly used cluster munitions on civilians. They literally just did it in Crimea a day ago.
If the victims are describing themselves as Ukrainian, which ethnicity is Ukraine cleansing here in your opinion?
Maybe read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR and what ethnicities live there.
I’m sure you will understand that watching an hour-long documentary is not a reasonable expectation to respond to a fediverse comment.
If you think that spending an hour to educate yourself on a subject you’re debating is too much time, it’s pretty clear you don’t actually care to understand the subject.
Literally none of these links are about ethnic cleansing. War crimes? Possibly. Use of particularly nasty weapons? Yes. Ethnic cleansing? No.
That hour long video you refuse to watch documents ethnic cleansing in great detail. This is literally why the eastern regions wanted to separate in the first place.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
“Using cluster munitions” still does not equal “ethnic cleansing”
Maybe read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR and what ethnicities live there.
Eastern Ukraine is not 100% ethnically Russian
If you think that spending an hour to educate yourself on a subject you’re debating is too much time
“Educate yourself on a subject” does not equal “reply to a social media comment”. I said the latter was not worth one hour, not the former. This is an extremely bad faith response to what I said.
That hour long video you refuse to watch documents ethnic cleansing in great detail.
See the thing is you put it alongside five other sources which you also said showed ethnic cleansing, but they did nothing of the sort. As such I see no reason to believe you on this.
Here’s a whole lecture you can watch on the problems that led to separatism
Yes, I know the Mearsheimer lecture. It is not about ethnic cleansing. So why are you bringing it up to back up your claim about ethnic cleansing?
“Using cluster munitions” still does not equal “ethnic cleansing”
Nobody made the argument that simply using cluster munitions equals ethnic cleansing on its own.
Eastern Ukraine is not 100% ethnically Russian
It is predominantly ethnically Russian, and those are the people who are being targeted.
“Educate yourself on a subject” does not equal “reply to a social media comment”. I said the latter was not worth one hour, not the former. This is an extremely bad faith response to what I said.
Bad faith is arguing about something you have no understanding of and wasting everyone’s time.
See the thing is you put it alongside five other sources which you also said showed ethnic cleansing, but they did nothing of the sort. As such I see no reason to believe you on this.
See this is what a bad faith argument looks like.
Yes, I know the Mearsheimer lecture. It is not about ethnic cleansing. So why are you bringing it up to back up your claim about ethnic cleansing?
Clearly you didn’t watch the lecture if you need to ask that question as it clearly explains the demographics in Ukraine, and why eastern regions decided to separate which is the ethnic cleansing that western backed fascists started doing after the coup in 2014. They weren’t hiding it either
Ukraine will lose more territory going forward, that’s the fact of the situation. Russia is winning the war, and it’s pretty clear that the west is not able to do anything about it.
Russia is being diplomatic, but if nobody wants to do diplomacy on the other end then they’re obviously going to take what they want by force at that point. Not sure what’s so hard to understand here.
Yeah it is when you are in a position of power. This is precisely how NATO has been conducting diplomacy with Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
I’m just explaining to you how the real world works here. That said, Russia gave Ukraine way more chances than US gave any of the countries it invaded.
Many Ukrainians may be open to negotiations in theory, but they overwhelmingly did not trust Russia to negotiate in good faith. Most Ukrainians (86 percent) believed that there is a medium or high risk that Russia will attack again even if there is a signed peace treaty, and even more (91 percent) believed that Russia’s motive to enter negotiations is to take time to prepare for a new attack. Even among those who supported negotiations with Russia, only 21 percent believed that signing a peace treaty would help Ukraine deter future Russian aggression.
Putin’s problem is he burned all the trust the world had in him when he attacked Ukraine after saying he would not. If he is truly serious about peace, he first needs to rebuild that trust.
The reality is that Russia is winning the war, and every day that goes by puts Ukraine and its western sponsors in a worse position. The terms will only get worse from here on out.
Even if it were true, it has nothing to do with the fact that Putin has said he is open for negotiations, while doing absolutely nothing to actually get people to negotiate with him.
If he wants to negotiate, he needs to work on building trust, so he has someone to negotiate with. If he does not want to negotiate, then he should just say so. What Putin does now just makes people not take him seriously. You could practically hear the global eye-rolling when he made his latest proposal.
I don’t think you understand what’s happening here. Either the west decides to start negotiating or there won’t be an Ukraine left. Those are the options on the table.
These libs are so used to having stopped caring about a war 8 years before it’s lost that they don’t even recognize what losing a war looks like. They think they can copium their way into Ukraine getting better terms.
Right, and Putin knows that the west and Ukraine will not negotiate since they don’t trust him. So what is the point of making an offer you don’t expect to be accepted? If you don’t expect to negotiate, you are not being serious about it.
You can not claim to be for a diplomstic solution and at the same time do nothing to actually reach it.
Putin would rather kill millions of Ukrainians and Russians than make himself trustworthy (which could actually lead to a diplomatic solution)? What kind of person does that?
The west of Ukraine has a choice to work with Russia to resolve this or to wait for Russia to win militarily and dictate terms. I’m still not sure what part of this you’re struggling with.
Now, Russia has put out another peace deal based on the realities on the ground today. The west immediately rejected it again. Yet, it turns out that it’s Putin who is willing to kill millions instead of using basic diplomacy. Interesting logic you’ve got going there.
It’s pretty clear that everyone does not want the war to stop given that the west has rejected multiple offers to stop the war. You’re right that the war can only stop if the west stops blocking the peace process.
Well, Russia has also rejected nany proposals, so that seems rather even.
I was not aware that Ukraine us preventing Russia from retreating out of Ukraine. Do you have a source for that? My understanding was hat Putin was allowed to pull back his troops, ending the war, without asking for permission from Ukraine? Or is it China he needs permission from? I’m confused. Who exactly is bossing Putin around saying he can’t withdraw?
It only seems even when you ignore the fact that Russia is winning the war.
Do you have a source for that? My understanding was hat Putin was allowed to pull back his troops, ending the war, without asking for permission from Ukraine? Or is it China he needs permission from? I’m confused. Who exactly is bossing Putin around saying he can’t withdraw?
That’s not what happened. Russia pulled back troops as part of Istanbul negotiations as a show of good faith. You do sound very confused indeed, which is likely why you keep making incoherent statements here. Perhaps spend a bit of time learning about the subject first?
You have the mindset that will be the reason for the end of the world. You literally say “the strong can do whatever the fuck they want”, how is that not warmongering?
You literally say “the strong can do whatever the fuck they want”, how is that not warmongering?
It’s absolutely hilarious that you’re claiming that this hasn’t been the norm already. The west has invaded Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan just to name a few countries in recent years. The only reason you’re upset now is that it’s not your side that’s doing it.
The people who are going to be the reason for the world to end are always the ones who want the wars to keep going. Especially wars where the outcome is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
So anyone who oppose you is a capitalist western dog is it?
It’s equally wrong to be sided with the West who invade countries just like to be sided with Russia or China who invades countries or persecute minorities. But since I don’t like tyrants, I must be Western.
The norm: “Let’s kill each other”. Yeah, that looks like something normal. Totally.
I just hope you live long enough to see the second Soviet dissolution. Maybe that day you’ll understand how bad warmongering is.
So anyone who oppose you is a capitalist western dog is it?
I’m just pointing out the sheer bullshit your argument is premised on. The west has been going on a rampage across the globe since USSR fell, and now here you are doing hand wringing about might makes right when a non western country does what’s already been normalized claiming it would be the end of the world.
The norm: “Let’s kill each other”. Yeah, that looks like something normal. Totally.
That’s the world US created under its hegemony since USSR dissolved.
I just hope you live long enough to see the second Soviet dissolution. Maybe that day you’ll understand how bad warmongering is.
The only one doing warmongering here is you. I want the war to end. I love how you aren’t even trying to be coherent here.
I guess engaging with reality is difficult for people who’ve been huffing propaganda for the past two years. If you think Ukraine will get better terms going forward then you’re utterly delusional.
Says the snowflake who can’t handle someone being a little mean to them on the internet and has to cry to the mods. Who’s the child here? We could ask all those dead russians that putin sent.
He literally put out a peace deal days ago that the west rejected.
The “deal” requires Ukraine to cede a colossal amount of territory before negotiations even begin. Even if the Ukrainian leadership was willing to give up all of that for peace, doing so here would not actually even buy them peace, only a start to negotiations that could collapse at any time. That’s about as diplomatic an offer as Ukraine saying “pre-2014 borders and then we can talk.”
The people living there don’t want to be a part of a state that tried to ethnically cleanse them, surprise surprise.
Are you referring to the language laws?
No, they’re referring to the ethnic cleansing
Hmm interestingly if such language laws would been implemented in country they don’t like, they would immediately scream about “cultural genocide”, often dropping the “cultural” word too.
Indeed
Use of cluster munitions against enemy troops is not ethnic cleansing. If you think it is, then Russia is guilty of ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.
As above: this is not ethnic cleansing, this is warfare against enemy troops and a tactic employed widely by Russia in Ukraine.
“There is warfare in this warzone”. Which part of this article is about ethnic cleansing?
If the victims are describing themselves as Ukrainian, which ethnicity is Ukraine cleansing here in your opinion?
I’m sure you will understand that watching an hour-long documentary is not a reasonable expectation to respond to a fediverse comment.
This is about ceasefire violations, not ethnic cleansing. It’s also amazing that they blame it entirely on Ukraine on an image that shows multiple explosions on both sides of the line on the first day. By the time the two sides have started shelling each other, the ceasefire is dead. The side that does more of it after that is not somehow more culpable for the end of the ceasefire.
Literally none of these links are about ethnic cleansing. War crimes? Possibly. Use of particularly nasty weapons? Yes. Ethnic cleansing? No.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
Ukraine has repeatedly used cluster munitions on civilians. They literally just did it in Crimea a day ago.
Maybe read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR and what ethnicities live there.
If you think that spending an hour to educate yourself on a subject you’re debating is too much time, it’s pretty clear you don’t actually care to understand the subject.
That hour long video you refuse to watch documents ethnic cleansing in great detail. This is literally why the eastern regions wanted to separate in the first place.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
Here’s a whole lecture you can watch on the problems that led to separatism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
“Using cluster munitions” still does not equal “ethnic cleansing”
Eastern Ukraine is not 100% ethnically Russian
“Educate yourself on a subject” does not equal “reply to a social media comment”. I said the latter was not worth one hour, not the former. This is an extremely bad faith response to what I said.
See the thing is you put it alongside five other sources which you also said showed ethnic cleansing, but they did nothing of the sort. As such I see no reason to believe you on this.
Yes, I know the Mearsheimer lecture. It is not about ethnic cleansing. So why are you bringing it up to back up your claim about ethnic cleansing?
Nobody made the argument that simply using cluster munitions equals ethnic cleansing on its own.
It is predominantly ethnically Russian, and those are the people who are being targeted.
Bad faith is arguing about something you have no understanding of and wasting everyone’s time.
See this is what a bad faith argument looks like.
Clearly you didn’t watch the lecture if you need to ask that question as it clearly explains the demographics in Ukraine, and why eastern regions decided to separate which is the ethnic cleansing that western backed fascists started doing after the coup in 2014. They weren’t hiding it either
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=aHWHqj8g7Bk
Ukraine will lose more territory going forward, that’s the fact of the situation. Russia is winning the war, and it’s pretty clear that the west is not able to do anything about it.
That’s a hard shift from “Russia is being diplomatic” to “Russia can just take what it wants”
Russia is being diplomatic, but if nobody wants to do diplomacy on the other end then they’re obviously going to take what they want by force at that point. Not sure what’s so hard to understand here.
It’s not meaningful diplomacy to say “give us everything we want or we will take everything we want”
Yeah it is when you are in a position of power. This is precisely how NATO has been conducting diplomacy with Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Oh right, so do you consider America’s behaviour towards Afghanistan diplomatic then?
I’m just explaining to you how the real world works here. That said, Russia gave Ukraine way more chances than US gave any of the countries it invaded.
lol the “peace deal” was just russia getting what it wants. Putin can end the war at any moment by withdrawing his troops back to russia.
Can you explain to us why he would do that given that Russia is winning decisively?
From one of the sources cited in the article: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukraine-public-opinion-russia-war?lang=en
Putin’s problem is he burned all the trust the world had in him when he attacked Ukraine after saying he would not. If he is truly serious about peace, he first needs to rebuild that trust.
The reality is that Russia is winning the war, and every day that goes by puts Ukraine and its western sponsors in a worse position. The terms will only get worse from here on out.
Even if it were true, it has nothing to do with the fact that Putin has said he is open for negotiations, while doing absolutely nothing to actually get people to negotiate with him.
If he wants to negotiate, he needs to work on building trust, so he has someone to negotiate with. If he does not want to negotiate, then he should just say so. What Putin does now just makes people not take him seriously. You could practically hear the global eye-rolling when he made his latest proposal.
I don’t think you understand what’s happening here. Either the west decides to start negotiating or there won’t be an Ukraine left. Those are the options on the table.
These libs are so used to having stopped caring about a war 8 years before it’s lost that they don’t even recognize what losing a war looks like. They think they can copium their way into Ukraine getting better terms.
Clearly, if they just keep repeating that Putin can end this war at any moment enough times then it will magically end.
Right, and Putin knows that the west and Ukraine will not negotiate since they don’t trust him. So what is the point of making an offer you don’t expect to be accepted? If you don’t expect to negotiate, you are not being serious about it.
You can not claim to be for a diplomstic solution and at the same time do nothing to actually reach it.
Putin would rather kill millions of Ukrainians and Russians than make himself trustworthy (which could actually lead to a diplomatic solution)? What kind of person does that?
The west of Ukraine has a choice to work with Russia to resolve this or to wait for Russia to win militarily and dictate terms. I’m still not sure what part of this you’re struggling with.
I’m struggling with Putin willing to kill millions instead of using basic diplomacy.
Putin is using basic diplomacy, and has been trying to do that for 8 whole years before the war started. That’s what Minsk agreements were about. Then two months into the war Russia almost had a deal with Ukraine that the west tanked. Even NYT has publicly admitted to this https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html
Now, Russia has put out another peace deal based on the realities on the ground today. The west immediately rejected it again. Yet, it turns out that it’s Putin who is willing to kill millions instead of using basic diplomacy. Interesting logic you’ve got going there.
What kind of logic is that? He is the one who started the war, as well as he can end it any time.
The US started the war with the coup. This is just an open secret. Obama is on video admitting it. You’re watching too much western propaganda.
Like there is any difference. US invading countries overseas, Russia invading neighbouring countries. They’re both invaders.
“Both sides are the same.”
The difference is that one is happening as a response to the other.
Great logic: “I invade countries because someone invades countries.”
And that time will be when Russia wins the war decisively.
You can support Putin blindly all you want but you don’t have to be warmongering. It isn’t good for any of us.
It’s interesting how people who want the war to keep going are calling people who want the war to stop war mongers.
I think everyone wants the war to stop, but only one side can actually do that.
It’s pretty clear that everyone does not want the war to stop given that the west has rejected multiple offers to stop the war. You’re right that the war can only stop if the west stops blocking the peace process.
Well, Russia has also rejected nany proposals, so that seems rather even.
I was not aware that Ukraine us preventing Russia from retreating out of Ukraine. Do you have a source for that? My understanding was hat Putin was allowed to pull back his troops, ending the war, without asking for permission from Ukraine? Or is it China he needs permission from? I’m confused. Who exactly is bossing Putin around saying he can’t withdraw?
It only seems even when you ignore the fact that Russia is winning the war.
That’s not what happened. Russia pulled back troops as part of Istanbul negotiations as a show of good faith. You do sound very confused indeed, which is likely why you keep making incoherent statements here. Perhaps spend a bit of time learning about the subject first?
You have the mindset that will be the reason for the end of the world. You literally say “the strong can do whatever the fuck they want”, how is that not warmongering?
It’s absolutely hilarious that you’re claiming that this hasn’t been the norm already. The west has invaded Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan just to name a few countries in recent years. The only reason you’re upset now is that it’s not your side that’s doing it.
The people who are going to be the reason for the world to end are always the ones who want the wars to keep going. Especially wars where the outcome is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
So anyone who oppose you is a capitalist western dog is it?
It’s equally wrong to be sided with the West who invade countries just like to be sided with Russia or China who invades countries or persecute minorities. But since I don’t like tyrants, I must be Western.
The norm: “Let’s kill each other”. Yeah, that looks like something normal. Totally.
I just hope you live long enough to see the second Soviet dissolution. Maybe that day you’ll understand how bad warmongering is.
I’m just pointing out the sheer bullshit your argument is premised on. The west has been going on a rampage across the globe since USSR fell, and now here you are doing hand wringing about might makes right when a non western country does what’s already been normalized claiming it would be the end of the world.
That’s the world US created under its hegemony since USSR dissolved.
The only one doing warmongering here is you. I want the war to end. I love how you aren’t even trying to be coherent here.
Removed by mod
I guess engaging with reality is difficult for people who’ve been huffing propaganda for the past two years. If you think Ukraine will get better terms going forward then you’re utterly delusional.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxee131gejpo
Removed by mod
Says the snowflake who can’t handle someone being a little mean to them on the internet and has to cry to the mods. Who’s the child here? We could ask all those dead russians that putin sent.
I reported you to the mods because I don’t want to see content from insane people on here. Go back to the cesspool that’s reddit where you belong.