• RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I mean, Putin won’t either, the negotiations are just for gaslighting and propaganda. Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on and even without Ukraine intends to increase military spending. They don’t need it, but it’s not up to them if it ends.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on

      This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, “US has plenty of wars” -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.

      I’m not condoning Putin btw. It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants. In the end it’s Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.

      • rdri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants.

        You’re clueless. Ukraine was precisely correct in its desire for additional protection from aggression.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        If America was actively attempting to annex Sonora I’d be happy to make the same arguments defending China if it armed Mexico

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about “Chinese weapons on our doorstep” would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.

          • Skua@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong.

            Or

            It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression

            It can’t be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia’s aggression.

            • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?

              What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.

              So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn’t happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.

              • rdri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades.

                As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.

                Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin’s struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.