Cool.
So why should Ukraine trust Russia's diplomatic efforts? You didn't answer the question.
Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
So why should Ukraine trust Russia's diplomatic efforts? You didn't answer the question.
Because their concerns make sense. The trick to successful diplomacy is to construction a situation to which everyone involved is bound by their self-interest.
But even if their concerns make sense, there's no benefit for Ukraine to forming a diplomatic agreement with them to address those concerns. Because Russia doesn't stick to whatever obligations or promises it makes. It offers zero security to make such an agreement with Russia.
From Ukraine's perspective, the only guarantee of safety is NATO. Because even if they fulfil Russia's requests, Russia will still attack.
Last edited:
To piggyback off of Silvanus, it's very simple.
Russia is Lucy.
Ukraine is Charlie Brown.
How many times is Ukraine supposed to listen to and believe "Look, those thousands of times before when I tricked you... I was wrong. And even those thousands of times when I admitted I was wrong to get you to try to kick the football just so I could pull it away? I was wrong then, too. Can't you be big enough to try again. Oh, and by the way, to kick this football this time, you're going to have to agree to give me your lunch money and let me take up your room for as long as I want. You must hold onto this as long as possible. I can change it at any time I feel because you're somehow suspicious even though I'm the one who broke our agreement last time."
I don't know how believable this is, but according to Finns who have friends or family in Russia, there's now a rumor going on in Russia that tomorrow Putin will address the nation, declare martial law and start full military mobilization. Lots of people are trying to escape the country as fast as they can before that.
It's a rumor and could be part of some disinformation campaign, but people are really terrified.
It's a rumor and could be part of some disinformation campaign, but people are really terrified.
Last edited:
Oh, no, you're quite right. The current situation, in which diplomacy was not pursued at all by NATO, is going ever so well.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
Does anyone know what martial law entails under Russian law? Is this a power the Russian government has?
By "diplomacy was not pursued" you mean "Russian demands were not accepted". Because meetings were made, and offered. Russia refused to even attend half of them. Diplomatic avenues were open. Russia was not willing to take any such avenues that did not include complete acceptance of their starting terms, which is not diplomacy.
But even if we accept what you're saying-- why should anyone pursue an avenue that has no chance of success? There is nothing to be gained. A promise not to attack from Putin's government is completely meaningless to Ukraine's security.
One thing I've seen mentioned is closing of borders. Noone is allowed to enter or leave
No, I mean diplomacy was not pursued. Full stop.
It would help if the United States weren't organizing the overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government in the background, or if large sections of Ukraine didn't want to break away from it to begin with, especially after that overthrow resulted in a regime that deliberately made Russian Ukrainians feel unwelcome. If Ukraine could follow its agreements, the Donbas wouldn't have been getting bombarded by neo-Nazi thugs with the weapons of the Ukrainian military for the past eight years.
Oh, then you're just mistaken, then.
This is just a laundry list of (supposed or disputed) crimes, that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual question, again. I have no interest in a back-and-forth accusation escalator. Just answer the question: if Ukraine acquiesced to what Russia demanded, the most the could get would be... what? A promise not to attack? A legal commitment not to attack? Those are meaningless from the Russian government. That route offers zero security.
Last edited:
No.
Government gets unconstitutionally overthrown by far-right anti-Russian neo-Nazis with aid of the United States. This is somehow not relevant to the Crimea wanting to leave and Russia facilitating that, nor does it have any relevance to the reason separatists would emerge in the Donbas. All events are their own particular things disconnected from everything else. The Russians are just brazen liars, no other explanation.
You’re skipping a step. The step where Russia forced the Ukrainian government to self destruct. What did Putin expect to happen when he started parading the Ukrainian president around as his puppet? Of course a government gets removed when it’s outed as a foreign puppet.
That's why Yatsenyuk was immediately overthrown when the Nuland/Pyatt tapes emerged?
Part of me wishes Hillary Clinton would have won in 2016 so we could have shot down Russian jets over Syria with a no-fly-zone in order to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, whenever people like Putin or Xi sense weakness they attack.
You know what is even more deranged; invading a sovereign country.
While a great many things would have been different (and better) if Clinton won, I don't think they'd attack Russian planes.
Also, can we stop using mental illness to mean something that is morally of factually wrong?
Also, can we stop using mental illness to mean something that is morally of factually wrong?
Sean you are justifying the invasion of Ukraine, which has resulted in thousands dead and whole cities being bombed to hell. Even if the war stops right now it will take years to decades to recover. Some places will never come back. You hear about the big cities like Kherson, but you don't hear about the small towns that were cut off at the start of the invasion, that people can't even confirm exist anymore.
You do not get to call other people deranged.
I get to do whatever the hell I like and you get to whine about it (and also lie about it).