I’ve seen this Boris Johnson argument several times on here and never once seen anything even remotely approaching a convincing explanation of what leverage Boris ever had to do this. Like a deal for a white peace with Russia was on the table and Boris somehow twisted Zelenskyy’s arm into fighting by threatening to not send weapons that wouldn’t be necessary if there was peace anyway?
Putin’s “solution” has been to give him what he wants to stop his invasion. This is how bullies, terrorists, extortionists and facists “solve” problems they create. If you agree with that solution then you’re one or all of those too.
Nothing of what you said is relevant to the situation in Ukraine.
I swear Putin cocksuckers are THE most brainwashed “model” citizens that live in dictatorships, parrot the same state/military propaganda and what-about everything they do onto their “enemy” countries.
he doesn’t get to invade and then negotiate to keep part of the place he invaded
Are you at all familiar with any history at all? How do you think such treaties usually go? Or did you think borders spent the last couple millenia shifting mysteriously without reason?
The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.
The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.
That’s literally how all negotiations work. Hostage negotiations - you take hostages and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for release. War negotiations - you dominate a space and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for ending violence. Unless you’re the USA, where you dominate a region after the majority of forces are already defeated and then when someone tries to negotiate their surrender you nuke 200k civilians.
Bad take. Why negotiate with an aggressor who is literally invading and trying to absorb a neighbor. You would be rewarding that behavior and Russia gets to stop their unpopular war at the same time.
I mean, Putin won’t either, the negotiations are just for gaslighting and propaganda. Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on and even without Ukraine intends to increase military spending. They don’t need it, but it’s not up to them if it ends.
Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on
This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, “US has plenty of wars” -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.
I’m not condoning Putin btw. It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants. In the end it’s Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.
It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about “Chinese weapons on our doorstep” would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.
It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression
It can’t be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia’s aggression.
Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?
What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.
So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn’t happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.
Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades.
As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.
Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin’s struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.
Russia could stop making all of its neighbours feel like they need protection from it, perhaps.
(mostly exclusive!) EU trade
Alright, please explain to me step-by-step how you expect Ukraine to join two separate and incompatible free trade areas. Because that’s what the argument at the time was about: which FTA to join, the EU-led DCFTA or the Russia-led CISFTA
Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime
“The EU wanted a trade deal with Ukraine and Russia wanted to choose Ukraine’s government.” Why are you acting like these are equivalent?
But that doesn’t happen
I don’t think it’s my place to tell Ukrainians to submit to subjugation
how you expect Ukraine to join two separate and incompatible free trade areas
Well aren’t you explaining it perfectly? Ukraine would have to leave the one and join the other.
And yeah I agree with all your sentiments, Ukraine should be free. But we can also agree that Russia is not acting completely randomly but out of self interest. And also that Russia is perfectly capable of invading a country and fucking up their shit. Right? We can agree that one should take Russia seriously? And be smart and careful?
It’s not about Russia being right, it’s about not being stupid and provoking them. Ukraine absolutely had a right to join NATO and it was absolutely clear that they would get in trouble and shouldn’t have tried it. Fuckers like Stoltenberg shouldn’t have encouraged it.
America will never allow this war to end.
You know who has total power to end this war? Putin. Just get the fuck out of Ukraine and it’s over.
There’s really nothing to negotiate.
They literally were negotiating at the start of the war for this exact outcome: Russia pulls out and Ukraine maintains neutrality.
Johnson threw a wrench in those plans.
Ukraine was never going to abort neutrality lol. Being a NATO member does not affect neutrality.
Also remember the Budapest Memorandum? Ukraine literally gave up nuclear weapons as instructed by Russia, for the promise that was broken.
I’d say the wrench was thrown by someone else. Or, rather, someone hit their own head by a wrench good enough to lose all mind.
Sorry what? You’re blaming Boris Johnson for this now?
One person has the power to put an end to this: the person who started it. Putin.
I’ve seen this Boris Johnson argument several times on here and never once seen anything even remotely approaching a convincing explanation of what leverage Boris ever had to do this. Like a deal for a white peace with Russia was on the table and Boris somehow twisted Zelenskyy’s arm into fighting by threatening to not send weapons that wouldn’t be necessary if there was peace anyway?
Do you still believe the UK is the empire where the sun never sets?? How the F would the UK even be able to influence these events.
Removed by mod
Putin’s “solution” has been to give him what he wants to stop his invasion. This is how bullies, terrorists, extortionists and facists “solve” problems they create. If you agree with that solution then you’re one or all of those too.
Removed by mod
Nothing of what you said is relevant to the situation in Ukraine.
I swear Putin cocksuckers are THE most brainwashed “model” citizens that live in dictatorships, parrot the same state/military propaganda and what-about everything they do onto their “enemy” countries.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
God damn, brother. I bet you thought that was a zinger.
Removed by mod
or because all putin has to do is stop invading ukraine. he doesn’t get to invade and then negotiate to keep part of the place he invaded
Are you at all familiar with any history at all? How do you think such treaties usually go? Or did you think borders spent the last couple millenia shifting mysteriously without reason?
The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.
The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.
That’s literally how all negotiations work. Hostage negotiations - you take hostages and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for release. War negotiations - you dominate a space and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for ending violence. Unless you’re the USA, where you dominate a region after the majority of forces are already defeated and then when someone tries to negotiate their surrender you nuke 200k civilians.
I think that if Russia got the fuck out of Ukraine, we’d happily let the war end.
Bad take. Why negotiate with an aggressor who is literally invading and trying to absorb a neighbor. You would be rewarding that behavior and Russia gets to stop their unpopular war at the same time.
Smooth brain take. You can’t negotiate unless there are stakes on both sides. Why are you people so daft?
I mean, Putin won’t either, the negotiations are just for gaslighting and propaganda. Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on and even without Ukraine intends to increase military spending. They don’t need it, but it’s not up to them if it ends.
This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, “US has plenty of wars” -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.
I’m not condoning Putin btw. It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants. In the end it’s Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.
If America was actively attempting to annex Sonora I’d be happy to make the same arguments defending China if it armed Mexico
It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about “Chinese weapons on our doorstep” would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.
Or
It can’t be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia’s aggression.
Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?
What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.
So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn’t happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.
As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.
Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin’s struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.
Play stupid games win stupid prices.
Russia could stop making all of its neighbours feel like they need protection from it, perhaps.
Alright, please explain to me step-by-step how you expect Ukraine to join two separate and incompatible free trade areas. Because that’s what the argument at the time was about: which FTA to join, the EU-led DCFTA or the Russia-led CISFTA
“The EU wanted a trade deal with Ukraine and Russia wanted to choose Ukraine’s government.” Why are you acting like these are equivalent?
I don’t think it’s my place to tell Ukrainians to submit to subjugation
Well aren’t you explaining it perfectly? Ukraine would have to leave the one and join the other.
And yeah I agree with all your sentiments, Ukraine should be free. But we can also agree that Russia is not acting completely randomly but out of self interest. And also that Russia is perfectly capable of invading a country and fucking up their shit. Right? We can agree that one should take Russia seriously? And be smart and careful?
It’s not about Russia being right, it’s about not being stupid and provoking them. Ukraine absolutely had a right to join NATO and it was absolutely clear that they would get in trouble and shouldn’t have tried it. Fuckers like Stoltenberg shouldn’t have encouraged it.
it’s 100% about moral arguments of right and wrong. just because the US’s wars are evil 99% of the time isn’t a reason to reject the one good one
You’re clueless. Ukraine was precisely correct in its desire for additional protection from aggression.