Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Monday called for an end to the "irrational" war in Ukraine, urging upcoming peace talks in the Middle East to include representation from both Ukraine and Russia.
Obviously you must think that it’s better to make sure hundreds of thousands of people die and millions more have their lives ruined before giving everything to Russia.
If I take this literally (“before giving everything to Russia”) then yes, it’s obviously better if hundreds of thousands die.
If you meant to say giving something to Russia, the question then is, what would be enough for Russia? They seem very much like Hitler’s Germany prior to WW2 right now, insofar that they try to reach further and further, and everyone has been just appeasing them. Russia has been involved in 15 wars since 1991, and in most of them Russia has been victorious.
Can you answer that? What would have been enough for Russia? How can we know that that would have been enough?
And imagine being the kind of absolute psycho who thinks that it’s better for billions of people to die in a nuclear holocaust than for Russia to win in Ukraine. These are the kinds of psychopaths we have here.
This line of thinking would set the precedent that nuclear powers can do whatever the fuck they want to do, and everyone who tries or even wants to stop them is guilty of causing nuclear holocaust. Should USA annex South America?
We have to realize that we’re not talking about taking Russian territory. We’re talking about restoring Ukrainian territory. The only one who is currently at the risk of losing any territory is Ukraine. Nobody is even thinking about taking Russian territory.
That’s a fallacious argument based on a false premise. Russia has always been clear that their concern has been NATO expansion. Ukraine would have lost none of its territory had it chose to remain neutral.
Perhaps it’s not so fallacious as you claim. Putin himself wrote a lengthy article (http://en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182) which was basically his version of Anschluß that Hitler used as reasoning for taking Austria in 1938. And Russian leaders have written a lot about how they would like to reverse the dismantling of USSR at least when it comes to territory – but since those nations are now sovereign that would amount to annexing those countries.
Meanwhile, it’s kind of funny of you to talk about setting some sort of precedent when the west has set it a long time ago.
I was talking about the precedent of using nuclear weapons to back offensive actions. USA did something like that during Korea in the 50s, but to my knowledge not since. Well ok, there was Trump, but who knows how serious that was.
Russia has always been clear that their concern has been NATO expansion. Ukraine would have lost none of its territory had it chose to remain neutral.
Didn’t Ukraine remain neutral about NATO until Russia took Crimea? Only after that they reconsidered that position.
The Budapest Memorandums disprove your argument. Long before Russian invaded Crimea, much less Ukraine main, a peace plan with a promise to never invade was given by Russia. Russia lied.
If I take this literally (“before giving everything to Russia”) then yes, it’s obviously better if hundreds of thousands die.
If you meant to say giving something to Russia, the question then is, what would be enough for Russia? They seem very much like Hitler’s Germany prior to WW2 right now, insofar that they try to reach further and further, and everyone has been just appeasing them. Russia has been involved in 15 wars since 1991, and in most of them Russia has been victorious.
Can you answer that? What would have been enough for Russia? How can we know that that would have been enough?
This line of thinking would set the precedent that nuclear powers can do whatever the fuck they want to do, and everyone who tries or even wants to stop them is guilty of causing nuclear holocaust. Should USA annex South America?
We have to realize that we’re not talking about taking Russian territory. We’re talking about restoring Ukrainian territory. The only one who is currently at the risk of losing any territory is Ukraine. Nobody is even thinking about taking Russian territory.
Removed by mod
Perhaps it’s not so fallacious as you claim. Putin himself wrote a lengthy article (http://en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182) which was basically his version of Anschluß that Hitler used as reasoning for taking Austria in 1938. And Russian leaders have written a lot about how they would like to reverse the dismantling of USSR at least when it comes to territory – but since those nations are now sovereign that would amount to annexing those countries.
I was talking about the precedent of using nuclear weapons to back offensive actions. USA did something like that during Korea in the 50s, but to my knowledge not since. Well ok, there was Trump, but who knows how serious that was.
Didn’t Ukraine remain neutral about NATO until Russia took Crimea? Only after that they reconsidered that position.
Removed by mod
The Budapest Memorandums disprove your argument. Long before Russian invaded Crimea, much less Ukraine main, a peace plan with a promise to never invade was given by Russia. Russia lied.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140317182201/http:/www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html
Removed by mod