Just because we didn’t quite fill enough buckets with arguing about the Budapest memorandum, the first time around

  • moreeni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      52 minutes ago

      Coincidentally, this is the thought process of a rapist as well.

      “Stop resisting, it will end quicker”

      • moreeni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 minutes ago

        Dude, wtf?! That is a shitty analogy. Country’s territories can be brought back in the future. Tens of thousands dead— can not. This economy cannot sustain the pressure of war and a demographic pit and it could use even a temporary truce. Agitating to keep grinding everything down in the hope that some day Russia might fall (it haven’t for 3 years already and doesn’t seem to be on the verge of that anywhere soon) is the analogy to what a rapist does to a human.

        • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 minutes ago

          If you think a country is just it’s territory, you don’t know what the word ‘country’ means.

          ‘Just let it happen’ mentality, for real.

          • moreeni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 minutes ago

            Jesus, westerners are something else. What else would be lost from a truce other than territory temporarily?

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago
      1. Because giving one party everything they’re asking for at gunpoint isn’t really a “deal,” that’s just them winning.
      2. 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.

    • GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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”?

      • moreeni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It is. Treaty of Versailles is considered a peace treaty. What’s the problem?