• Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Probably the same way that’s been done for centuries? Armistice, followed by a peace treaty?

          • ebenixo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            By involving the same country that was responsible for setting up the scenario where it was invaded, and having that country also not go out of its way to cancel the peace talks that were going on, because they threatened its imperialist hegemony in the region.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            37
            ·
            1 year ago

            The same way anyone starts negotiating with anyone: open a dialogue and exchange demands, and then work to make concessions and compromises. They won’t do that, though, because then the infinite money spigot from the US will shut off because America doesn’t want this war to ever end.

            • SpicyPeaSoup@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              You tell me where you live, I’ll break into your house and steal half your stuff.

              Instead of fighting back or calling the police, we can negotiate so I can have half your stuff. Sound good?

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                30
                ·
                1 year ago

                I dunno, do you have nuclear weapons that could cause the apocalypse?

                Countries aren’t people. The scale the work on is much greater.

                • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’ve got an important word there. Scale.

                  Countries aren’t people but they’re made up of them. It wouldn’t take nuclear weapons to annihilate your household.

                  Russia has invaded Ukraine’s home and tried to lay claim. Now you’re suggesting they give up what was taken from them to satisfy your desire for peace.

                  The analogy the other person used is fair. In another analogy Russia is nothing more than a bully. We’ve long moved past the time where the advice we give is to just give the bully your money so they don’t beat you up and take it anyway.

                  • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There is no such thing as a society, only individuals and families. Very true Maggie!

                    No, countries are qualitatively different from simply “lots of people”

                  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    18
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Bullies also don’t have nuclear weapons.

                    Stop comparing people to countries. The scale makes it so absurd, because nuclear weapons could end the god damn world.

                • danny@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The thing with nukes is that it’s suicide, and they know it. So they just use the threat of it to get whatever they want, in the hopes that the people in charge are like you and will just flop over to their demands whenever they dangle the threat.

            • pingveno@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I doubt Ukraine will demand anything less than Russia pulling out of previous held lands. Russia will doubtless demand all lands it currently occupies (and maybe even ones it claims but does not occupy). Russia’s demand could be cast as peace, though really it involves giving a massive portion of Ukraine to Russia. And if you’re thinking that might be temporary… well, just ask Finland, which lost 9% of its territory to a peace agreement in the Winter War after the Soviet Union invaded them.

              • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I doubt Ukraine will demand anything less than Russia pulling out of previous held lands

                I doubt Ukraine will demand anything, losers don’t get to decide anything.

                NATO has been given the opportunity to negotiate with Minsk 1/2 and the peace talks back in April 2022, now they’ll reap what they’ve sown.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                26
                ·
                1 year ago

                They’d each have their own demands, and then negotiations would be finding a middle ground between “Ukraine gets everything it wants” and “Russia gets everything it wants”

                • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why should Ukraine have to make any conversations at all? Russia invaded and took land and lives, and you think Ukraine should just give up some of that, just cuz?

                • Newusername4oldfart@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Russia is contractually obligated to shoot itself in the head right now, according to a treaty they signed declaring they are bound to Ukraine’s defense should an armed force invade it. I’m not really sure what Russia plans to bring to the table when they have broken every promise they have made and stolen from Ukraine.

                  You’re asking Ukraine to barter with the armed robber who claims ownership of your house.

              • Roody15@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes because they cannot win on the battlefield and have lost an enormous amount of lives. Just because Russia is adversary to the US does not mean we should send 100,000’s of young people to the grave. (Meanwhile safe over in the states we wave Ukrainian flags and call them heroes as we leave them dead or mangled)

                So yes reaching a compromise even if Russia was the aggressor is in the best interest of the people left in Ukraine.

                Would you rather use our weaponry and intelligence and money to prolong this war for 10 years … just to have the same outcome but 20x the number of casualties?

                  • Roody15@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sorry for the assumption but my comment still stands in terms of what is a realistic beneficial outcome for Ukraine at this point? Clearly China, India (probably others) are helping Russia keep its ammo stocks and munitions filled.

                    Other than a negotiated settlement we can have either world war 3 with NATO intervening … or we can just drag this out for 5-10 years at an enormous cost and literally 100,000’s of dead Ukrainians.

              • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes. That’s literally how peace negotiations work. The alternative, winning the war, precludes the necessity of peace negotiations. All negotiations in the history of negotiations are negotiations between aggressor and agressee.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                29
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                For the sake of peace, yes, I think they should be willing to make concessions. That’s how negotiations work.

                If you refuse to offer anything you aren’t really negotiating. You’re just issuing demands with no exchange.

                • M0oP0o@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh yeah that worked so well for them in 1997 and 2014. Did people forget that peace negotiations have happened before and russia has broken the agreement every time?

                  Why would Ukraine or anyone for that matter take anything the russian federation says as not a lie? Also I think that in this case it would be stupid for Ukraine to allow russia any ability to regroup.

                  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    20
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    NATO broke the 1997 pact when it bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, in violation of the UN Charter.

                    In 2014 Ukraine’s legitimate government was overthrown by the Euromaidan coup.

                    Before you screech your revisionist history at me, answer this: are you willing to fight this war until no one is left?

                • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If someone came into your country and started to rape, kill and kidnap your people would you roll over and give them whatever they wanted to stop doing that?

                  • Redditsucks1@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Maybe we should break into their home and see if they want to start peace negotiations. Because nobody calls the police when that happens. Give us half your stuff and we will leave.

                  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    18
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If the alternative was that they would rape, kill, and kidnap my people for the next 20 years without end?

                    I’m not willing to fight this war to the last Ukrainian.

    • danny@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh yeah cuz Putin has just seemed so open to peace, dipshit… it’s not like it hasn’t been tried about countless times. He doesn’t want peace, he just wants everything handed to him with zero consequence

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok, and what do you think they would look like exactly? Unless Russia are willing to leave Ukraine, there’s little to talk about.

    • jcit878@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      id prefer HIMARS instantly raining down on every last invader without a white flag in the sky. fuck em and the cookers supporting the genocide

        • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What nuclear weapons? The fuel got sold for vodka money and the tritium has decayed away to uselessness with Russia giving up on producing more

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If that were true, do you think America and its allies could resist total war? They’d just bomb the whole country to ashes.

            “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”