Just because we didn’t quite fill enough buckets with arguing about the Budapest memorandum, the first time around
IMO, The EU should straight up ally with Ukraine with a path to membership. I think that allowing Russia to be as it is, would be a huge mistake. In a conflict with America, that would likely mean having a Russian knife to one’s back. Breaking the Russia we know, developing Ukraine, and maybe even help some form of Neorussia democracy with a Marshall Plan, would all contribute to getting ready for a fight with America.
He’s right. USA demanding payment is BS, after all Ukraine got rid of nuclear weapons with assurence of security. USA was a part of that assurence. Same goes for all European countries that backed that deal. You signed it, now stand by it no matter what.
I always find it fascinating when a whole bunch of people all start saying the same wrong thing about something.
I posted below a link to Wikipedia explaining what actually happened with this. I feel like the game of me disagreeing with this person is just going to get swallowed into an expanding tide of people arguing and insisting on things. Read the article.
US: “give up your weapons, we will protect you.”
US: “omg why do you keep expecting us to protect you.”
I hope when Trump, Musk, and the rest of them go it is an incredibly long, drawn out, and painful process.
The Budapest memorandum! Fun stuff. Instead of all of us arguing, I recommend for people to read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content
I can really see why it is that some people have a hard-on for trying to destroy Wikipedia. A lot of the misery that’s been washing over the world for the last 10 years or so is because they’ve developed really incredibly powerful tools for unmooring people’s perceptions of reality from what the actual reality is, and Wikipedia is starting to stick out as a trusted source of truth, as the others fall and crumble one by one.
unfortunately I fear Trump will never see any retribution for his many, many misdeeds.
Musk, on the other hand, is young enough that we have decades for his chickens to come home to roost. We can really draw out the “find out” phase for him. I’m gonna buy a bottle of champagne for the occasion.
From an article I read about this:
“We must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” [US Defense Secretary] Hegseth said, referring to the year Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. “Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.”
Why is that an “illusionary goal”? That should be the bare minimum goal. I’d say that plus some sort of restitution and Putin being jailed would be the ideal outcome, but getting their territory back should be the main non-negotiable.
I resurrected this solely because I wanted to continue a conversation with @Objection@lemmy.ml because I thought they were making a pretty fair argument.
It seems to me that it wasn’t so much that they “snapped out of it” as that they were trying to argue in good faith from the start, and got sidetracked because of your antics.
The alt-right playbook is good stuff for dealing with alt-right people or those who employ similar tactics, but if you resort to that right off the bat without justification, then you’re the one who’s out of line.
Yeah. Since I’ve been trying not to do this, I’ve caught myself a few of times typing something super-sarcastic, deleted it, and written just a straight explanation of what I’m trying to say, and it always works better. If the person was bad-faith, then it becomes a little more clear who’s the bad party, instead of it just being a big snark fight. If they weren’t (which has also happened), it saves a whole bunch of grief and hostility on all sides. I was really surprised how well it worked. Maybe that sounds stupid but it was a big revelation to me.
You should use a carrot and stick approach. If someone is sticking to the facts, you stick with the facts, if they start doing weird psychological bullshit, then you deploy countermeasures to force them back to the facts.
This is where it gets to where I have to make a conscious effort. To me, the original message I was replying to was in no way sticking to the facts. It was “factual” in the sense of, no personal attacks or anything, but it was so far removed from a good-faith argument that I just couldn’t take it seriously as something someone actually believes. Like:
- Point: Ukraine is mad about the bullshit peace agreement! (Okay, sure, seems pretty reasonable.)
- Counterpoint: Let’s bring Kamala Harris into it! Harris would obviously have pressured them with the same bullshit peace agreement! Trump isn’t exceptionally dangerous for Ukraine and its aid! The absolutely shocking-to-the-world-at-the-time resistance and counteroffensive Ukraine has been able to do against a 20-times-larger opponent is proof that the West isn’t helping, and therefore Trump is the same as Harris! The real answer is that Ukraine should have nukes!
I’m exaggerating, but only a little.
I actually do think you’re right and I should have taken the snark out. But not because the original argument was something that really needed to be dealt with on the merits, although I did try to make a point to address the merits also instead of just jeering.
Yes, that’s the deal ATM. It sucks, but that’s the deal. Either that or Europe pulls their collective head out their ass and fights back against a vile threat that’s literally on their doorstep, which ain’t happening. Because those dumb sons-of-bitches should have preparing since 2014 when Russia first pulled this shit. Should have been on guard against those evil fuckers since 1945.
Because Europe: GUNS BAD! We can diplomacy with Russians! Can’t we give peace a chance?
No, not against Russians you cant. You END their ability to fight, permanently, or we’ll do this every few decades.
And why is Zelensky talking draft? Why isn’t every able-bodied man already fighting?
Sorry Ukraine, you’re my heroes, and I mean that. I flag your flag and not my own. But America ain’t a trustworthy ally any longer. Democracy has failed here, and we voted for it.
Why is the peace deal put in quotes? Last time I checked when a war ends peace comes. Even if there’s a price to pay.
- Because giving one party everything they’re asking for at gunpoint isn’t really a “deal,” that’s just them winning.
- Because part of the concern is that there’s no particular guarantee, if we have a peace deal, that the peace will continue after the deal. Both iterations of Russia’s original invasion were accompanied by strident denials that they were invading, because that was crazy Western propaganda, and nobody’s going to invade Ukraine. A person who’s willing lie to you about the present and past, is even more likely to lie to you about the future.
Edit: Actually, even more telling: One of Russia’s key demands, apparently, is that it is ABSOLUTELY OFF THE TABLE that Ukraine get security guarantees from anyone, now or ever in the future. In the mode of abusers everywhere, the one thing that is an absolute atrocity which will cause them to go ballistic is if they are threatened with consequences if they don’t adhere to the terms of the deal. The deal they are swearing they will, of course, how could you even think otherwise, adhere to.
I think the reason it’s a “peace deal” is that it’s quite obviously a surrender agreement that the surrendering party doesn’t accept and wasn’t consulted on. And even if it doesn’t eliminate Ukraine fully, it doesn’t ensure peace at all, hence the point about their previous peace deal being a mistake.
Should anyone have nukes or use them? No.
If Ukraine re-nuclearized during this conflict and sent Russia back to the stone age, would we weep for Russia? The Russian people, we would mourn, but the country’s leadership? I hope they suffer an agonizing death, that they’re in just the right proximity to the blast zone to be able to survive for a few days while their burnt flesh falls off their body. How’s that for a “peace deal”?
Losing a war is a peace deal, apparently.
It is. Treaty of Versailles is considered a peace treaty. What’s the problem?
