“Because in 2024, Ukraine is no longer facing Russia. Soldiers from North Korea are standing in front of Ukraine. Let’s be honest. Already in Ukraine, the Iranian ‘Shahedis’ are killing civilians absolutely openly, without any shame,” said Zaluzhny, adding that North Korean and Chinese weapons are flying into Ukraine. Zaluzhny urged Ukraine’s allies to draw the right conclusions. “It is still possible to stop it here, on the territory of Ukraine. But for some reason our partners do not want to understand this. It is obvious that Ukraine already has too many enemies. Ukraine will survive with technology, but it is not clear whether it can win this battle alone,” he said.
He is making fun of a conflict where people he couldn’t care less for are dying. Yeah real funny!
No, just making fun of you.
To constitute a joke, there must be a clear punchline. What he said, however, lacked coherence, and I sought clarification, which he ultimately failed to provide.
no, the issue is you lack a brain
Responding to my post indicates that you are engaged, yet your reply consists solely of insults and fails to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. A reflection of who you are!
It’s coherent to everyone else.
It is clear that ending World War II earlier would have saved millions of lives.
Doing something analogous to what you’re saying should happen could have prolonged the Second World War by years. Doing the opposite of what you’re suggesting but much sooner could have shortened the Second World War by years. Germany could only afford to get anything done because it was able to loot the countries it invaded during the appeasement era, and only able to manufacture military equipment at the scale necessary to invade France etc. because it was permitted to scale up manufacturing during the appeasement era. It’s nearly universally accepted that the appeasement era cost far more lives than would have been lost had France and Britain intervened during the initial invasion of Czechoslovakia as it could have been enough to entirely prevent the later invasions of Poland and France.
There are two factors at play here. I am baffled when I hear that seeking peace by the Allies is considered a negative, while bombing Axis cities is viewed as a positive. If we are to discuss the specific circumstances required for peace, it is undoubtedly a far more complex conversation. During World War II, we were faced with the threat of the Aryan race attempting to dominate Europe and the Japanese Empire’s sweeping control over vast portions of East Asia, including most of China’s eastern coastal areas, Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, and parts of Southeast Asia such as Vietnam, the Philippines, and many Pacific islands. Under those conditions, peaceful resolution was never a feasible option, particularly when considering the cost to their citizens. Peace may not have been achievable during that time, but in the present day, the lack of communication and de-escalation strategies from the current American administration has, in my view, contributed to the avoidance of peace rather than its pursuit.
What you don’t seem to understand is Putin doesn’t negotiate in good faith anyway, it has been proven over and over the Russian Government will lie, cheat, steal, whatever to get what they want. Appeasing dictators does not work and only strengthens them for their inevitable march on to attempt to gain more power/land/money.
The United States does not always negotiate in good faith either, and in this case, we are not holding the moral high ground. Dictatorships are ultimately the responsibility of the people within those nations to address and resolve, not external powers.
The current administration should have prioritized diplomatic efforts for peace rather than immediately resorting to military support escalating the conflict.
If you find that funny I seriously question your sense of humour
Does it appear that I find the loss of life in war humorous? Have you carefully considered my comments on this issue? Your response seems to reflect a bad faith interpretation of my position. It seems that your focus is more on justifying the conflict than on the individuals who are directly affected by it in Ukraine. For many, the reality is that we would struggle to endure even two weeks without basic necessities like running water. How long do you think it would take for your perspective on this war to change? Would it take a certain number of casualties, or perhaps another 1,000 days of conflict?
I obviously wasn’t making a joke. I was comparing the situation from 1940 with today. Would you also have said the Allies should just make peace at any cost or did they do the right thing to prevent even more suffering?
Get a grip on reality, you can’t give dictators and aggressors an inch. It would be just an invitation for them.
Had the Allies pursued peace earlier, countless lives could have been spared, and many cities would not have needed to be rebuilt. Additionally, Japan would not have experienced the devastation of atomic bombings. If you believe that prolonging a conflict is preferable to achieving peace, I believe a sobering reflection on the consequences of war is necessary.
Yeah, you’re just stupid. Goodbye
That is how I feel in response to our conversation. Goodbye.
Yes, letting the regime that was throwing all the “undesirables” into an industrial death factories, in the land they already had, to take even more land, to control all of those “undesirables” would have been better. Sure, the loss of life would have been less, if you feel like the nazis did about the people being slaughtered in the holocaust.
Just allowing Japan to take China, and everything around them, sure would have stopped them from massacring all the people they were killing there too.
Appeasing dictators is fundamentally different from pursuing de-escalation and cooperation. In the 1940s, after the war had begun, there was no realistic path for the Allies to achieve diplomatic success with Germany or Japan. The nature of their aggressive expansionism and ideology made meaningful negotiation impossible, leaving military conflict as the only viable response.
Are you really trying to draw a comparison to today’s situation? The context is entirely different—we are more informed and connected than ever before. Avoiding paths to peace and solely pursuing escalation under the premise that “Putin is bad” is a fundamentally flawed approach. First, we do not choose Russia’s leadership. Second, if Putin is the leader the Russian people have chosen, who are we to dictate otherwise?
Lets say in a perfect world in 1940’s US and Japan had open diplomacy, it’s possible a deal could have been reached to prevent such atrocities. The beauty of diplomacy lies in its ability to minimize human loss while fostering cooperation and peace.