Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

ā€œPeople think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldnā€™t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we havenā€™t lost a single American in this war,ā€ McConnell said. ā€œMost of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So itā€™s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.ā€

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

  • Gsus4@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    7
    Ā·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The real question is why does russia want to kill Ukrainians to the last Ukrainian.

    • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      8
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Russia repeatedly made peace talk attempts early on. Western powers that actually call those shots rebuffed them. Boris Johnson himself intervened, allegedly.

      The answer to the real question, which is why Russia isnā€™t unilaterally ending the war, is that its objectives have not been met and/or the status quo is acceptable to them. The former is the exact same as saying why Russia invaded in the first place.

      So why do Western powers want this was to go to the last Ukrainian? NATO military tactics that assume air dominance without the air dominance. Zero expectation of a win, despite the propaganda.

      • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Russian conditions to even consider peace were pretty insane, like keeping all the territory their initial conquest managed to claim, removing the baltics and other countries bordering Russia from NATO and forbid Ukraine from joining any alliance. Not only could Ukraine not fulfill all those conditions, they would never accept that.

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          6
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          You are confused and are including open demands Russia made of the US / NATO prior to the invasion. Russia has not demanded that Ukraine somehow de-NATOify Baltic countries.

          Russiaā€™s initial negotiation demands were things like this:

          • Denazification.
          • Demilitarization.
          • No application to NATO.
          • Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.
          • Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

          These are in no way insane demands given the context of NATO encirclement, the civil war and ethnic cleansing at their doorstep, and the fact that Russia is obviously never giving up Crimea. It is alsoā€¦ the lead-in to negotiations, which Ukraine started balking at around the same time reports came out about Western prevention of Ukraine participating.

          • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            Yea, even those were in no way reasonable. Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraineā€™s ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

            Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where youā€™re getting that. The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraineā€™s application was denied so thereā€™s none of that either. And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              6
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              Yea, even those were in no way reasonable.

              Theyā€™re very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.

              1. Ukraine haw a very serious Nazi problem that liberals everywhere recognized right up until it became inconvenient for the war narrative. The Nazi problem is part and parcel of the civil war and failure to abide by Minsk II, as those Nazis were the tip of the spear against ethnic Ruasians in Donbas. Disempowering and jailing Nazi war criminals shouldnā€™t be controversial.

              2. Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATOā€™s advancements despite the fall of the Soviet Union, this demand is already a half-measure. Ukraine being militarized and used as a Western forward military base is not something Western countries would tolerate if the roles were reversed.

              3. Ukraine isnā€™t joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.

              4. Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, ā€œyou couldnā€™t abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only optionā€. Ukraine and their Western masters had nearly a decade to democratically deal with the breakaway states per their own agreements and chose to instead ramp up a civil war targeting ethnic Russians right on Russiaā€™s border. The failure od the status quo ans the Westā€™s ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.

              5. Ukraine isnā€™t getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.

              Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraineā€™s ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

              Russia could take the whole thing any time they wanted to, lol. They have complete air superiority and a much more powerful arsenal and manpower and tactics. They could do the American thing - the NATO thing - and destroy the rest of the country, targeting Kyiv and civilian infrastructure en masse. Instead, they are choosing a war of attrition that achieves many of their objectives without just rolling over the whole country.

              Neutrality is far safer for Ukrainians and always was. A neutral Ukraine wouldnā€™t have been invaded by Russia in the first place.

              Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where youā€™re getting that.

              Then you havenā€™t been paying attention. Likeā€¦ at all. Itā€™s been going on since 2013/2014. Please educate yourself on the derussification efforts undertaken by Ukraine targeted at ethnic Russians as well as their ruthless targeting of the Donbas.

              The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraineā€™s application was denied so thereā€™s none of that either

              None of what?

              And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

              Ukraine is already not a sovereign state, lol. Their political leadership was chosen by Nuland et al behind closed doors as part of Euromaidan. Neutrality would actually be the most sovereign they have any chance of being, toyed with through economic courtship rather than couped and destroyed.

              And again, Russia can annex Ukraine wherever it wants to. Most of it, at least. Poland would probably claim Western Ukraine for itself with various bullshit excuses.

              • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                Ā·
                1 year ago
                1. It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so thatā€™s a meaningless point.
                2. The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.
                3. Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.
                4. One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.
                5. They may now, depending on how the war goes.

                No idea what these points are other than just lies. Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesnā€™t now. Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia. As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from. They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

                None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasnā€™t joining NATO.

                The political leadership Nuland ā€˜selectedā€™ was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. Thatā€™s like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

                Canā€™t find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

                Iā€™m guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. Iā€™d suggest going to some other sources.

                • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  Ā·
                  1 year ago

                  It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so thatā€™s a meaningless point.

                  UA incorporated Azov Batallion into its official forces aftee the invasion and Right Sector is everywhere. What on earth are you talking about?

                  Youā€™re also losing the plot if you think, ā€œRussia has more Nazisā€ is relevant to whether this is a reasonable demand in this exact context where the Nazis are the shock troopa against Donbas. Also, Russia has about 5X the population of Ukraine.

                  Forms of nominal hypocrisy just plain donā€™t matter. This isnā€™t model UN or debate club, itā€™s powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. ā€œDisable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbasā€ is a reasonable starting ask.

                  The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.

                  Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasnā€™t threatening anyone, it was undergoing ā€œshock therapyā€, getting dismembered, and losing tens of millions of lives.

                  NATO has never been a defensive org. Article 5 has only been triggered once and it was used to launch a war of aggression (amazing). It has taken many offensive and aggreasive moves, however. This narrative that membera join for safety is absurd: itā€™s always an escalatiom, a threat, and is done with this knowlesge. The primary thing is actually bestows is official American military bases in your country.

                  And as you can see, it mase Ukrainians much more vulnerable

                  Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.

                  This doesnā€™t counter what I said at all.

                  UA isnā€™t joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as Iā€™ve argued, it actually securea a better position for the Ukrainian people, who are currently stuck acting as proxies for Western plans against Russia - and paying for it (have been since 2014).

                  One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.

                  Because UA continued to shell Donbas. RF and Donbas troops implemented ceasefires repeatedly. RF pulling out unilaterally would have meant giving UA Nazis more kills against folks in Donbas. UA refused to actually work together to end the war there and implement the required referenda.

                  They may now, depending on how the war goes.

                  Delusional.

                  No idea what these points are other than just lies.

                  Theyā€™re a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldnā€™t have expected ā€œdisempower and get rid of your Nazi commandosā€ to be something youā€™d oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. Iā€™m confident you were unaware of basically everything Iā€™ve told you given the babytime propaganda stories youā€™ve been telling me. Youā€™re welcome!

                  Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesnā€™t now.

                  It absolutely does. UA doesnā€™t even have airfields an F-16 could use anymore. UA has no real air presence at all, which is why the only UA things you hear about with any evidence are manpads. This is also why UA following NATO doctrine in ā€œthe counteroffensiveā€ has been such a completr failure. No air support.

                  Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia.

                  Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.

                  As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from.

                  I know you donā€™t. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but itā€™s very uncool to have such strong opinions in something youā€™ve never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what itā€™s currently using to destroy ammo dumps and take down planes. Or, better, endeavor to feel okay having no opinion yet.

                  They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

                  They have more manpower because they have 5X the population.

                  UA is also doing forceful conscription and with much more dramatic coercion.

                  None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasnā€™t joining NATO.

                  ???

                  The political leadership Nuland ā€˜selectedā€™ was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. Thatā€™s like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

                  Sounds like you havenā€™t heard the recording or you wouldnā€™t be saying such nonsense.

                  Canā€™t find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

                  Ah, you have to actually know what ethnic cleansing is and then know what has been happening in UA for the last decade and apply it yourself. The ways in which media outlets and politicians use certain terms is very selective and UA never really got the enemy/target treatment that brown or ā€œbadā€ countries get.

                  Anyways, you should research better. Hereā€™s a starting point: the National Druzhina.

                  Iā€™m guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. Iā€™d suggest going to some other sources.

                  Youā€™d guess wrong and I think youā€™re projecting, as you clearly have relies entirely on certain dominant narratives to give you opinions rathee than informing yourself.

                  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    Ā·
                    1 year ago

                    If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies itā€™s quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.

                    Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.

                    Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive. Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.

                    Also if you want to compare numbers: highest estimate of Azov brigade was 2500, highest for Wagner was 50000. Wagner also got mostly incorporated into the Russian military.

                    The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO. Thankfully Russia seems to have run out of equipment to annoy us and this stopped completely halfway into itā€™s war with Ukraine.

                    If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others. You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.

                    This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.

          • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            Denazification.

            Vague

            Demilitarization.

            Vague

            No application to NATO.

            Ukraine made that deal when they gave up nukes, Hereā€™s Russia invading anyways

            Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.

            No comment, shitā€™s too complex

            Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

            ā€œJust concede the most valuable part of your country as a gesture of good faithā€

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              Yes. ā€œDenazifyā€ everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territoryā€¦ or else.

              Kind of amazing how liberals will tell themselves little stories and even believethem rather than actually having to learn something.

              You should be honest with yourself and at least become familiar with the context of the demands before forming an opinion. Iā€™ll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RFā€™s invasion.

              Can you explain why countries want to join NATO? Why do they want to give away some control of their military so badly and risk being dragged into someone elseā€™s war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?

              These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And letā€™s just say Iā€™m dubious that youā€™re actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that theyā€™re taking a deal to be subservient to the United States, which usually requires their political class, and therefore economic ruling class, to see an interest in doing do. Not that theyā€™re correct - the US is slowly deindustrializing its European allies as we speak. The reason why those interests won out? Those are specific historical stories. Try answering your own question but for Ukraineā€™s toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?

              Itā€™s as if thereā€™s a country to the east pushing the idea that theyā€™re actually part of Russia, that their culture doesnā€™t exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said countryā€™s army should just invade!

              Case in point that youā€™re not curious in any real answers.

              Reminds me of that meme where the guy puts something into his bike wheel and then blames someone else for the outcome.

              Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.

                • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  Ā·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh, Iā€™m liberal now. Weird as I was a fascist just before I left reddit. In a few hours someone will call me a communist.

                  Fascism is just an offshoot of liberalism so this isnā€™t a zinger

                  Iā€™m very honest with myself. I also try to not bullshit myself into believing itā€™s only an Ukraine problem.

                  You definitely tell stories and deflect and make guesses but present them as if theyā€™re fact so gonna disagree with you, champ

                  Russia didnā€™t invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis.

                  Yeah duh, or at least not proximally or the exact Nazis being referred to. This feels like saying things just to feel like youā€™re lecturing but it doesnā€™t mean anything. The next two paragraphs donā€™t address what I said or answer my question.

                  But yes, Ukraine had ā€œnazisā€, but so did Russia.

                  Cool, what impact does that have re: Russiaā€™s demand? Itā€™s a pretty liberal thing to try to come up with pointless gotchas or like entire states are hypocritical or something so you donā€™t need to look any deeper. Are you able to provide even the most basic explanation for why the RF would want UA to hand over/imprison their Nazis?

                  I recommend reading about people like Aleksandr Dugin

                  Ahahahahahahaha

                  I guess we need to invade Russia, right?

                  Already did. First in 1918, then in the early 90s (it was called the shock doctrine).

                  Anyways, you seem to again be arguing with some liberal in your head that bases everything on abstract rules and gotchas. Has nothing to do with me or anything Iā€™ve said.

                  Also, in 2019 the far-right party (Svoboda) received 2.16% of the votes in the whole country. Not even 3%.

                  Congratulations youā€™ve caught up with liberal arguments from 2022. It is, in fact, peak liberalism to think that election results are the same as political power, or power in general. Iā€™m sure the Roma murdered in tacitly state-supported pogroms are delighted to know Svoboda only got a few percent in an election.

                  Anyways, you failed to answer my question. Iā€™m not even a tough grader. Just looking for very basic material context, and you couldnā€™t do it. I even gave you a hint!

                  If thatā€™s the case, then Putin must be part of the conspiracy?

                  This makes no sense.

                  Maybe people read what Russian politicians say, look at the size of their country, remember what happened during the days of the Soviet Union (and now at what happened to Ukraine) and say: ā€œmaybe we should be friends with that big guy over there, just in case the local bully decides to invade usā€.

                  This is a form of liberalism called idealism, and itā€™s as hilarious as it is wrong. People just got together, for no clear reason, and thought a bunch until change happened. Actually donā€™t mention ā€œfor no clear reasonā€, because this begins the thought of, ā€œwell why would I need to think about material causes?ā€, which puts you into dangerous territory of reading or understanding something before having an opinion on it. Best to just make shit up and have little cartoon characters voice your opinions and tell little stories, right?

                  Of course my lIbErAl mind is too dumb to understand high level politics like you do

                  You are perfectly capable of understanding anything Iā€™ve mentioned. Youā€™re unwilling and uninterested, and are a victim of propaganda and your society. If you chose honesty, things would go a lot better, but you so far you seem unable to drop the habit of making things up to fill in the gaps. Very defensive behavior, which is typical for Reddit-brained liberlaism.

                  but if one reads Putinā€™s On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians and Address concerning the events in Ukraine, itā€™s not that hard to imagine that thereā€™s a much simpler reason.

                  Reading Putin and extracting value from it requires already knowing all of the things he mentions, as he is just a singular politician struggling in his own interest, attempting to make very particular cases to very particular audiences. I amā€¦ dubious that any of that happened here.

                  What lead to the change in Ukraineā€™s political class? Other than Yanukovychā€™s reversal and people getting pissed? I donā€™t know.

                  You skimmed all of that and failed to notice the coup, lol.

                  Iā€™m curious, thatā€™s why I sometimes actually read what Mr Putin says

                  Your behavior says the exact opposite

                  To know the real answers you canā€™t filter out everything that doesnā€™t fit your view.

                  Ahahahahahahaha

                  My apologies, let me make it easier for you

                  See the gears turning. Youā€™ve been criticized! What to say in response? Hmmā€¦ well this Maoo jerk just said you used simplistic examples because you canā€™t understand whatā€™s happening on the planet due to ignorance and worldview. Thatā€™s a meany thing to say! Better turn toā€¦ uhā€¦ condescension? Yeah, and say ā€œIā€™ll make it simplerā€! Thatā€™ll get 'em!

                  Because I probably do have to spell it out: I said you were being simplistic. Making it simpler is dunking on yourself.

                  Russia, which is not governed by morons, decided to invade Ukraine to accomplish certain objectives.

                  You jumped into this thread to flail around because you didnā€™t understand what those were, and continue to miss the most basic points made about them, lol. No wonder this is left vague.

                  They knew what they were doing, you donā€™t need to make excuses up to defend their actions.

                  Now youā€™re doing the ā€œIā€™m rubber youā€™re glueā€ thing. Amazing how contradiction brings out the inner child in liberals.

                  Like any major power, they donā€™t give a fuck about Ukraine or the people that live in Ukraine. Itā€™s not a nice thing, but hey, it is what it is.

                  Who are the ā€œtheyā€? Be specific. This will help you on your journey on learning how to know things.

                  No, Russia didnā€™t have to invade.

                  According to what logic? Who makes any country invade another? This type of thinking isnā€™t even appropriate for the category of thing weā€™re talking about. Iā€™m giving you babyā€™s first realpolitik here and nothing is sinking in.

                  No, Ukraine wasnā€™t going to invade Russia

                  lol who on earth are you talking to? Do you think I said anything like that? If not, tell me who youā€™re talking to. Be specific. Does the person in your head saying these things look like a muppet? Did you win your argument with them?

                  And no, thereā€™s no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (theyā€™ve been trying since the early 2000ā€™sā€¦).

                  UA isnā€™t joining NATO in the near term either. If you stopped making shit up and asked questions or read things, you might say things that are germane to this conversation.

                  Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine.

                  Liberal brain strikes again. Good guys vs. bad guys. If you criticize me, you must support the bad guys. I have a big brain.

                  Just donā€™t try to come up with bs excuses for what theyā€™re doing. You like Russia and you like what theyā€™re doing.

                  Now weā€™ve graduated to the ā€œlying their ass offā€ portion of disagreeing with a liberal.

                  I on the other hand donā€™t agree with theyā€™re doing and also have a similar position when other countries do the same, so you can see why I donā€™t support their invasion of Ukraine.

                  Ah yes, thatā€™s the thing weā€™re talking about: whether or not you support Russia invading Ukraine.

    • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Seriously, to listen to hexbears talk about the Ukranian invasion, youā€™d think that the US talked Ukraine into invading Russia just for fun, and that Russia was simply left with no choice.

      The killing can stop absolutely any day now - all Putin has to do is pull out and pay for his mess, easy peasy

        • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          All you have to do is read through this very thread to find numerous examples of hexbears acting like US liberals are primarily (or second only to Ukraine itself) for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

          ā€œWhy could Ukraine have just bent over and let Russia take it over??? And why couldnā€™t the rest of the world just pretend it never happened?? What about 'Murica in the middle east???ā€

          Sounds pretty familiar to me.

            • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              Itā€™s literally everywhere in this thread. Thereā€™s history lessons abound about how bad Ukraine is (with no noticeable criticism of Russia) but no example of what should be done now except to have them give up their sovereignty, their most valuable land, and giving in to Russianā€™s demands.

              Itā€™s insane to me that these are the same people who would probably say that the US shouldnā€™t have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan, or that the US shouldnā€™t invade Cuba. In their view, since the US did a coup there once, I guess all their people deserve to die and lose their sovereignty? How does that make sense?

              ā€œNo, we just want the US and Europe to stop giving them weapons to defend themselves!ā€ OK then, then what do you think will happen? More deaths and then a loss of sovereignty obviously. Why is this on them and not on Russia, who simply have the option of stopping their aggression and walking away?

              • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                Ā·
                1 year ago

                Itā€™s literally everywhere in this thread. Thereā€™s history lessons abound about how bad Ukraine is (with no noticeable criticism of Russia) but no example of what should be done now except to have them give up their sovereignty, their most valuable land, and giving in to Russianā€™s demands.

                Show one example, lib.