Supplying a nation of 38 million with weapons against a nation of 144 million doesn’t ensure them victory against Russia.
If the west genuinely wanted to prevent a genocide they would be supplying them with personnel, too. By drawing out the conflict without giving them a way out of attrition more Ukrainians will die.
The west cares more about hurting Russia than they do about Ukrainian lives.
Ah, yes, when Ukraine has explicitly refused the possibility of Western personnel fighting the war on their behalf. I’m so glad to see that the wishes of the democratically elected Ukrainian government deserve to be discarded, in your view, in exchange for a distinctly paternalist interventionism. Since that’s no longer popular in the West, it’s not going to happen.
Obviously, since intervening ourselves isn’t an option, the only correct thing to do is to let the stronger country win. But it’s not might makes right! It’s only might makes right when you disagree with it, right?
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
‘Let the stronger country win’ is a contradiction, either they are the stronger country and they will won, or it isn’t just Ukraine fighting it and Russia isn’t the stronger opponent.
The west wants to not get involved in the war but they don’t want Russia to win, that’s the definition of wating your cake and having it to.
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
lmao, this misinformation again. You keep repeating the talking points you hear Putin make when Tucker Carlson is interviewing him. You’re no different than any other right-wing chud other than a coat of red paint.
I’m too cheap to pay for access to the article, but they were close to an agreement. Here’s the summary as I heard it (summarized from wiki)
Charap and Radchenko argued that four factors in combination led to failure to achieve agreement. According to them, three factors involved specific stakeholders: the unwillingness of Ukraine’s Western partners to provide security guarantees; Ukrainian public anger at the Bucha atrocities; and Zelenskyy’s increased confidence in a military solution with the failure of the Russian attempt to take over Kyiv. The fourth factor listed by Charap and Radchenko was that solving geopolitical security issues while ignoring immediate peace processes for detailed security issues such as humanitarian corridors, ceasefirea, and the withdrawal of military forces was overambitious, "aim[ing] too high, too soon
But whatever you’d like to believe. You’ve only so far expressed your desire for Russia to lose and haven’t alluded to any concessions you’d find acceptable, so I have to assume you’re happy with all-out war until Ukraine wins or loses completely
lmao, yet it’s the argument that all of your comrades resort to with regards to the Ukrainian situation.
At least it’s not ‘we’ll give you the means to destroy yourself in service of hurting Russia’ like all of your western buddies like arguing.
“Defending yourself against genocide is actually destroying yourself”
Want to remind me how this ISN’T a might makes right argument, the kind of which you supposedly were against just one comment ago?
You can’t stay consistent for a single comment. Unbelievable. But anything to simp for fascists, I guess. I’m sorry, ‘Anti-Imperialist Fascists’.
Supplying a nation of 38 million with weapons against a nation of 144 million doesn’t ensure them victory against Russia.
If the west genuinely wanted to prevent a genocide they would be supplying them with personnel, too. By drawing out the conflict without giving them a way out of attrition more Ukrainians will die.
The west cares more about hurting Russia than they do about Ukrainian lives.
Ah, yes, when Ukraine has explicitly refused the possibility of Western personnel fighting the war on their behalf. I’m so glad to see that the wishes of the democratically elected Ukrainian government deserve to be discarded, in your view, in exchange for a distinctly paternalist interventionism. Since that’s no longer popular in the West, it’s not going to happen.
Obviously, since intervening ourselves isn’t an option, the only correct thing to do is to let the stronger country win. But it’s not might makes right! It’s only might makes right when you disagree with it, right?
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
‘Let the stronger country win’ is a contradiction, either they are the stronger country and they will won, or it isn’t just Ukraine fighting it and Russia isn’t the stronger opponent.
The west wants to not get involved in the war but they don’t want Russia to win, that’s the definition of wating your cake and having it to.
lmao, this misinformation again. You keep repeating the talking points you hear Putin make when Tucker Carlson is interviewing him. You’re no different than any other right-wing chud other than a coat of red paint.
deleted by creator
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine
I’m too cheap to pay for access to the article, but they were close to an agreement. Here’s the summary as I heard it (summarized from wiki)
But whatever you’d like to believe. You’ve only so far expressed your desire for Russia to lose and haven’t alluded to any concessions you’d find acceptable, so I have to assume you’re happy with all-out war until Ukraine wins or loses completely
You… you do realize that the meaning of that isn’t “The West wanted more war” right?
… right?