GivingEuropeASpook

You joke (I think) but you actually illustrate why so many people are supporting Ukraine. The reaction of a lot of people to "the US should be forcibly disbanded by an international peacekeeping force" would be one of indignation and fury at the suggestion that foreign powers should violate one's home and put their loved ones in danger in order to satisfy global political objectives.

The presence of Neo-Nazis within a nation's borders does not give another country just cause to invade unilaterally. The idea that, because Ukraine has Neo Nazis and incorporated groups like Azov into its formal military structure, it makes the Russian invasion justified, is to implicitly accept that bigger, more powerful countries are entitled to "spheres of influence" and thus should be able to unilaterally intervene in their neighbour's politics when it suits them.

Ukrainians aren't particularly more supportive of Neo-Nazis than any other white-dominant nation in Europe – it was just an excuse by Russia to invade.

The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want

This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia's military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and "reasonable" war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it's "allowable" in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn't before.

...have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

I don't mean to deride your analysis, but I also do wonder how much analysis some random Hexbear user can really make. I mean, I can look at maps of assessed control from the ISW and I hear about what goes down in some of the more nationalist Russian telegram channels but I deliberately try to avoid anything that makes me sound knowledgeable in military strategy and tactics.

I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine's approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it's got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn't be criticized.

Ah, all good then.

Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire.

Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict?

If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".

Did I read the same article as everyone else? I don't get where "failed offensive" is coming from. It was western media that created the impression of an impending counter-offensive that would all but end the war, not anything from Ukraine's armed forces as far as I know.

Since launching a much-vaunted counteroffensive using many billions of dollars of Western military equipment, Ukraine has recaptured more than a dozen villages but has yet to penetrate Russia's main defences," .... NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN that Ukrainian commanders deserved the benefit of the doubt. 'Ukrainians have exceeded expectations again and again," he said. "We need to trust them. We advise, we help, we support. But... it is the Ukrainians that have to make those decisions."

This doesn't sound like a "failed" offensive to me. The "much-vaunted" part came from the West, not Ukraine. It sounds to me like western officials got themselves psyched up based on nothing and are now whining about it. So like, yeah, critics of the slow counteroffensive, shut up. You sound as ridiculous as the people who acted like Kyiv would be taken by March 2022.

I haven't seen either of these phrases, but in my experience even when something is supposed to be the equivalent versions of each other, it somehow feels different to hear and say. Like, it feels alright to call my group of friends "bros" but not "sisses." Could it be that "go off queen" and "go off king" have different connotations despite the fact that they should mean the same thing?

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

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.

Right, but it's not like every country not filled out in green is actively supporting Russia in the same way. In terms of countries supplying Russia the way the US, NATO, and the EU are supplying Ukraine, I'm pretty sure it's just Iran and North Korea. The US has largely failed to isolate Russia the way it wanted to, but Russia hasn't been able to get the kind of support from its allies that Ukraine has (like, unless there have been some Chinese Type 99s tanks spotted in operation by the Russians that I hadn't heard about, I'm not exactly tracking the front every day).

even more political groups and discussions rarely involve ukraine except when lula decides to own zelensky in some way, no one here cares about nato's proxy war

I mean why should they? Brazil as a country (you mention lula, so) isn't in NATO so it doesn't have an ideological reason to support Russia or Ukraine in the matter. There's nothing to be gained geographically for Brazil either, since whoever controls Kyiv doesn't directly impact any strategic concerns for Brazil afaik.

You say no one cares, so while I think most people in Canada and US hope that Ukraine "wins", does that mean apathy in that regard or would you say most people are passively hoping Russia achieves its war goals?

And that makes it okay for them to escalate it, how?