610
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 91 points 1 year ago

You know what? I never thought I'd say this but I'm with Ukraine on this one.

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 15 points 1 year ago

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 80 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 9 points 1 year ago

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 1 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (62 replies)
load more comments (101 replies)
load more comments (108 replies)
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
610 points (94.1% liked)

World News

32171 readers
460 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS