This whole counter offensive insanity is so militarily nonsensical that it had to have been mounted to please the West with a "win" so that they'd stay in the war. Real Chiang Kai Shek committing the best of the KMT army to Shanghai to impress the Westerners energy.

The West is standing on the sidelines, supplying just enough equipment to keep the embers going and judging the ordinary Ukrainians going to their deaths by their hundreds.

Fuck the clowns in charge in Kiev and fuck the Nazi militias obviously. But at this point the men being sent to the front are old men and boys dragged off the street against their will. Sending them to die to appease the West is fucking sick.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 13 points 2 years ago (93 children)

This got an upvote?

Are you open to proposing your master plan?

Ukraine has been invaded. Are you suggesting they do not fight back?

NATO is not war. No NATO country has been attacked. Engaging against Russia directly would put NATO at war with a nuclear power. I cannot imagine that this is your plan.

Not just “the West”, but everybody is on the sidelines as far as direct engagement goes. Most countries are assisting Ukraine where they can. Some to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Most have imposed crippling sanctions. So. “sidelines” is a bit misleading from that perspective.

Even Russia’s allies are “on the sidelines”. You certainly do not see much overt support from China. They have even maintained ( in fact stepped-up ) diplomatic relation with Ukraine.

Or are you trying to imply that the underlying cause of everything here is something other than Russia’s continued invasion? Everybody could truly go back to the sidelines if Russia just left.

The only other path is for Ukraine to win. Are you supporting that or not?

[–] rubpoll@hexbear.net 83 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

If your goal is to prevent deaths, surrendering would have been the ideal yeah.

Zelenksy tried to surrender to prevent further deaths, and Boris Johnson refused to let that meeting happen because NATO isn't finished using Ukranians as crash test dummies.

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If your goal is to prevent deaths, surrendering would have been the ideal yeah.

This has literally never been true in any war ever. Foreign occupations rarely tend to be bloodless and I doubt a Russian one would have been an exception. At no point were any of the peace talks about Ukraine's surrender – only renouncing it's NATO ambitions in exchange for the withdrawal of Russian troops, as per:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper

"In the weeks ahead of Johnson's April 9 visit, high-level diplomatic talks held in Belarus and Turkey had failed to yield a diplomatic breakthrough, though reports in mid-March indicated that Russian and Ukrainian delegations "made significant progress" toward a 15-point peace deal that would involve Ukraine renouncing its NATO ambitions in exchange for the withdrawal of Moscow's troops."

At no point was surrender on the table - that would have likely lead to Zelenksy's detention and execution in the early days of the invasion.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

I don't think Zelensky was too keen on capitulating to Vladimir Putin's demands to destroy his country, after sending in GRU hit squads to kill him and his family multiple times at the outset of the war.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Zelenskyy tried to surrender and Boris Johnson stopped him?! Ooooookay… He maaaybe (all “unnamed” sources) expressed an opinion, which the U.K. learnt the hard way, that you cannot negotiate with dictators. There can be no “peace in our time” with dictators hellbent on destruction.

To cast that as “Ukraine was stopped from surrendering” is just obscene … and yet another Kremlin talking point.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 76 points 2 years ago (36 children)

which the U.K. learnt the hard way, that you cannot negotiate with dictators. There can be no “peace in our time” with dictators hellbent on destruction.

If the UK is convinced that you can't negotiate with dictators, how does the UK keep entering into arms sales agreements with Saudi Arabia? Do the contracts just appear out of thin air at BAE?

load more comments (36 replies)

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 60 points 2 years ago (14 children)

Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

Foreign Affairs is a Kremlin propaganda outlet now?

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 49 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Foreign Affairs is certainly propaganda, just not of the Kremlin variety.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 42 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lol exactly, it's the last place you'd expect to find anything challenging the U.S. narrative.

[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 47 points 2 years ago

Considering there's people in this thread complaining were spreading Russian propaganda by posting a press release FROM UKRAINE I'm starting to think their accusations may not be entirely in good faith.

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What part of this reads as a "surrender" to you?

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not how I'd characterize it personally, but it's what that other person was referring to.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (90 replies)

load more comments (97 replies)