• Bobsnoturuncle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That NATO official already has retracted and apologized for that statement. Fuck putin and fuck russia. They aren’t going to get a thing except the contempt of the world.

    • modulus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That NATO official has apologised about the form and lack of context, then restated that territorial concessions are likely:

      But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.

    • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Interesting how tankies keep saying that the west is forcing Ukraine to keep fighting. But when NATO suggests they give some land to Russia to stop the war, the Ukrainians get offended and want to keep fighting. 🤔

      • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ukrainians get offended and want to keep fighting

        ‘Ukrainians’ are not a monolith. The Ukrainian government doesn’t necessarily reflect opinions of the Ukrainian people (especially if you compare between regions within Ukraine).

        west is forcing Ukraine to keep fighting

        If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don’t you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?

        • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don’t you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?

          NATO wants to give assurances to their Eastern European members that they won’t bail on them when Russia starts eyeing their territory.

          If they wanted to keep the war going, they wouldn’t have made the offer in the first place.

          • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            after he said publicly that Ukraine could give up territory to Russia in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.

            Key part " in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.". NATO didn’t let Ukraine join the last time they asked because NATO is well aware that it could lead to multiple countries having nuclear weapons (U.S., UK and France) going against Russia.

            Why do you think NATO would want to give remaining parts of Ukraine the NATO membership if such a peace agreement where the NATO Ukraine remains in war with Russia? This will result in a very sensitive situation where a NATO member (Ukraine) and Russia are in a frozen war with each other. If Ukraine were to try to take their territory back, it’ll be a war between entire NATO and Russia.

            I believe NATO is well aware of the fact that such a ‘deal’ is not possible.

            Ukraine has consistently called for a restoration of its internationally recognised pre-2014 borders

            What Ukrainian Government ‘wants’ is very unrealistic considering how strong the Russian presence is in Crimea.

            • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, NATO doesn’t want a deal that could spark another war. And they also offered Ukraine a way to settle a dispute, lose territory, and stop a current war.

              Explain to me then: How is the west forcing Ukraine to keep fighting? And don’t say “stop supplying weapons”, NATO has to assure their members that they would stand by them.

              • Flaps [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bruh nato sending ukraine weapons is a good argument to point to when asked how nato keeps this war going. We’re not pro Russia, neither are we pro nato. We want an end to the bloodshed, where as you look at thousands of dead Ukrainians and then pretend this is a good thing because you care so much about Poland or something. You wipe a solid argument off the table because you gave it some vague explenation (show members they’d stand by them? Even if that were the reason, it doesn’t justify the tens of thousands of dead you seem to not take into account at all).

                • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Read the article mate.

                  NATO literally proposed to Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Answer this, and don’t dodge the question: Why would NATO ever put forth that proposition if they wanted the war to keep going?

      • Staines [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interesting how dronies keep saying that the east is forcing Donbas to keep fighting. But when Russia suggests they give some land to Ukraine to stop the war, Donbas gets offended and want to keep fighting. smuglord

        • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          But when Russia suggests they give some land to Ukraine to stop the war, Donbas gets offended and want to keep fighting.

          LOL When did that happen tankie? Russia is the one that propped up the separatist movement in the Donbas in the first place.

          • Staines [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You acknowledge that people have a right to defend themselves, and be supplied weapons to that effect. Your usage of “propped up” also suggests you acknowledge that there were legitimate separatist sentiments in Ukraine in 2014. Why do your principles of armed self determination break down when applied to Donbas? Seems that “tankie” is your word for “someone that believes in self determination”.

            When did that happen tankie?

            Minsk 2, proposed by Russia, outlines that control of the border should be restored to Ukraine, and that Donbas should be reintegrated democratically back into Ukraine with a level of federalization to protect it from future lapses in Ukrainian democracy.

            • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              with a level of federalization to protect it from future lapses in Ukrainian democracy.

              With a puppet government, you mean.

              Just like the “free” elections that they lead in an occupied territory.

              • Staines [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah yes, “free” as opposed to »free« Ukrainian elections.

                In free, western Ukrainian elections, the ruling party simply bans opposition parties that they don’t approve of and seizes their assets.

                • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Don’t change the subject with whatabouttisms tankie.

                  I can play that game too: Russia held elections at gunpoint in occupied territory. Do you also believe that the elections the US held in Afghanistan and Iraq were free? Or does that only apply to countries that you don’t like?