• @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    Interesting how tankies keep saying that the west is forcing Ukraine to keep fighting. But when NATO suggests they give some land to Russia to stop the war, the Ukrainians get offended and want to keep fighting. 🤔

    • FuckyWucky [none/use name]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      Ukrainians get offended and want to keep fighting

      ‘Ukrainians’ are not a monolith. The Ukrainian government doesn’t necessarily reflect opinions of the Ukrainian people (especially if you compare between regions within Ukraine).

      west is forcing Ukraine to keep fighting

      If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don’t you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?

      • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don’t you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?

        NATO wants to give assurances to their Eastern European members that they won’t bail on them when Russia starts eyeing their territory.

        If they wanted to keep the war going, they wouldn’t have made the offer in the first place.

        • FuckyWucky [none/use name]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          after he said publicly that Ukraine could give up territory to Russia in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.

          Key part " in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.". NATO didn’t let Ukraine join the last time they asked because NATO is well aware that it could lead to multiple countries having nuclear weapons (U.S., UK and France) going against Russia.

          Why do you think NATO would want to give remaining parts of Ukraine the NATO membership if such a peace agreement where the NATO Ukraine remains in war with Russia? This will result in a very sensitive situation where a NATO member (Ukraine) and Russia are in a frozen war with each other. If Ukraine were to try to take their territory back, it’ll be a war between entire NATO and Russia.

          I believe NATO is well aware of the fact that such a ‘deal’ is not possible.

          Ukraine has consistently called for a restoration of its internationally recognised pre-2014 borders

          What Ukrainian Government ‘wants’ is very unrealistic considering how strong the Russian presence is in Crimea.

          • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            Yes, NATO doesn’t want a deal that could spark another war. And they also offered Ukraine a way to settle a dispute, lose territory, and stop a current war.

            Explain to me then: How is the west forcing Ukraine to keep fighting? And don’t say “stop supplying weapons”, NATO has to assure their members that they would stand by them.

            • FuckyWucky [none/use name]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              NATO has to assure their members that they would stand by them.

              Ukraine isnt in NATO officially.

              Are you saying NATO wants to give ‘assurance’ to its own members that they’ll provide help if Russia were to enter NATO territory by ‘helping’ a non-NATO country? Don’t you think its a bit ridiculous to give billions of dollars of weapons (thus weakening themselves) to a non-NATO country just to ‘prove’ to its eastern European members that NATO will ‘help’? U.S. already has military bases in Germany, Poland and Baltics, one would think large number of U.S. soldiers just being in Eastern Europe and multiple NATO countries having nuclear weapons would be enough of a deterrence for Russia to not invade.

              • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                Public opinion in Eastern European NATO countries is very much pro-Ukraine. They want NATO to send more weapons.

                In fact, they have gone above and beyond to send them more weapons (percent-wise), than other countries.

                • FuckyWucky [none/use name]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  71 year ago

                  “When it comes to new equipment, the Eastern European partners will primarily turn to the United States,” said Matthias Wachter, chief defense analyst at the German industry association BDI. “Germany and France have unfortunately disqualified themselves in the eyes of many eastern Europeans by way of their reluctant stance on military support for Ukraine.”

                  :>For example, Poland is in line to receive an undisclosed number of Challenger 2 tanks from the U.K. to backfill its supply of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. That’s in addition to the planned purchase of 250 Abrams tanks from the United States in a deal worth almost $5 billion.

                  As a result, Poland, once interested in joining the German-French Eurotank development effort, will now be flush with modern tanks for decades to come, Wachter noted.

                  Washington has worked for years to get former Warsaw Pact countries to replace their Soviet-era equipment with NATO-compatible kit. A $713 million tranche of aid announced Monday, aimed at Ukraine and its neighbors, is meant to do just that.

                  Eastern Europe gives up its old Soviet era weapons, obtains fancy ones from the U.S. Military Industrial Complex.

                  https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/04/28/ukraine-weapon-switcheroos-are-flushing-soviet-arms-out-of-europe/

                  • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    How does that contradict what I’ve said? They want NATO to send weapons, and they fear Russia (for obvious reasons). And NATO needs to reassure them that they will support them in defending themselves against a potential Russian invasion.

                    Are you trying to change the subject? Or did you genuinely did not understand what I said?

            • modulus
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.

              • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.

                Assurance to the other Eastern European countries that are members (read my previous response). The other Eastern European countries want to supply weapons to Ukraine (they have gone above and beyond to send extra to Ukraine).

            • Flaps [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Bruh nato sending ukraine weapons is a good argument to point to when asked how nato keeps this war going. We’re not pro Russia, neither are we pro nato. We want an end to the bloodshed, where as you look at thousands of dead Ukrainians and then pretend this is a good thing because you care so much about Poland or something. You wipe a solid argument off the table because you gave it some vague explenation (show members they’d stand by them? Even if that were the reason, it doesn’t justify the tens of thousands of dead you seem to not take into account at all).

              • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Read the article mate.

                NATO literally proposed to Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Answer this, and don’t dodge the question: Why would NATO ever put forth that proposition if they wanted the war to keep going?

                • Flaps [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  Bruh you havent read anything since the third grade. It’s about how a nato official blurted something out for which he almost emediatly had to apologize. ‘Not ruling out’ is just a first sign of NATO coming to terms with the fact they’ll run out of Ukrainians sooner or later. If this war ends, it’ll be through negotiations, and like it or not, Russia has the stronger position. But you’re happy to keep throwing bodies into the meat grinder.

                  • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s about how a nato official blurted something out

                    He wanted them to consider it, otherwise he wouldn’t have said it. This is not some guy in the pub having a chat with his friends and he “blurted it out” over some beers. These are bureaucrats with highly controlled chains of command.

                    emediatly had to apologize

                    He did that after the Ukrainian backlash.

                    I’m not going to debate who’s wining, since you’re going to pull out some RT stats. What I’m arguing is the point tankies keep pushing that NATO is somehow pushing Ukrainians into a war against their will, and that NATO is not open to a negotiation to end the war.

                    You had literally a NATO official suggesting Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Ukrainians getting outraged, and him having to backpedal.

    • Staines [he/him, they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Interesting how dronies keep saying that the east is forcing Donbas to keep fighting. But when Russia suggests they give some land to Ukraine to stop the war, Donbas gets offended and want to keep fighting. smuglord

      • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        But when Russia suggests they give some land to Ukraine to stop the war, Donbas gets offended and want to keep fighting.

        LOL When did that happen tankie? Russia is the one that propped up the separatist movement in the Donbas in the first place.

        • Staines [he/him, they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You acknowledge that people have a right to defend themselves, and be supplied weapons to that effect. Your usage of “propped up” also suggests you acknowledge that there were legitimate separatist sentiments in Ukraine in 2014. Why do your principles of armed self determination break down when applied to Donbas? Seems that “tankie” is your word for “someone that believes in self determination”.

          When did that happen tankie?

          Minsk 2, proposed by Russia, outlines that control of the border should be restored to Ukraine, and that Donbas should be reintegrated democratically back into Ukraine with a level of federalization to protect it from future lapses in Ukrainian democracy.

          • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            with a level of federalization to protect it from future lapses in Ukrainian democracy.

            With a puppet government, you mean.

            Just like the “free” elections that they lead in an occupied territory.

            • Staines [he/him, they/them]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              71 year ago

              Ah yes, “free” as opposed to »free« Ukrainian elections.

              In free, western Ukrainian elections, the ruling party simply bans opposition parties that they don’t approve of and seizes their assets.

              • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Don’t change the subject with whatabouttisms tankie.

                I can play that game too: Russia held elections at gunpoint in occupied territory. Do you also believe that the elections the US held in Afghanistan and Iraq were free? Or does that only apply to countries that you don’t like?

                • Staines [he/him, they/them]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  5
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m sure Russia had to hold, (at gunpoint?) the people of Donbas who had been shelled for 8 years by the Ukrainian government to get them to vote to leave Ukraine. Or the people of Crimea who had already voted to leave Ukraine before the Russian Federation even existed.