If Russia withdrew their troops, there would be peace immediately.
If Ukraine withdrew their troops, Ukraine would be no more - and there’s no indication Russia would stop there.
There wasn’t peace before Russia invaded. The far-right US puppet regime was slaughtering ethnic Russians in the east, and allowing NATO to move in troop and missile deployments to the Russian border.
Why would Ukraine behave differently after a Russian withdrawal, when they were escalating for 8 years prior to the invasion?
Arent your eyes watering? How can you even type? With putins cock jammed so far your throat? No gag reflex?
Fuck Russia
Can someone explain how you are supposed to get Russia to leave? Sanctions didn’t work, lethal aid didn’t work, F-16s didn’t work, and striking Russia itself isn’t either.
You can argue for the war to continue I suppose, but Ukraine isn’t winning and I’m not seeing anything here that would change that fact.
You can absolutely want peace and even agree to concessions to Russia to reach a sustainable peace, but this point is absolutely valid: there must be security guarantees, otherwise Putin will just use the armistice to rebuild its strength and attack again.
Ukraine, Russia, the DPR and LPR signed a ceasefire agreement, the Minsk Protocol, in September 2014.[40] Ceasefire breaches became rife, 29 in all,[41] and heavy fighting resumed in January 2015, during which the separatists captured Donetsk Airport. A new ceasefire, Minsk II, was agreed on 12 February 2015. Immediately after, separatists renewed their offensive on Debaltseve and forced Ukraine’s military to withdraw.[42] Skirmishes continued but the front line did not change. Both sides fortified their position by building networks of trenches, bunkers and tunnels, resulting in static trench warfare.[43][44] Stalemate led to the war being called a “frozen conflict”,[45] but Donbas remained a war zone, with dozens killed monthly.[46] In 2017, on average a Ukrainian soldier died every three days,[47] with an estimated 40,000 separatist and 6,000 Russian troops in the region.[48][49] By the end of 2017, OSCE observers had counted around 30,000 people in military gear crossing from Russia at the two border checkpoints it was allowed to monitor,[50] and documented military convoys crossing from Russia covertly.[51] All sides agreed to a roadmap for ending the war in October 2019,[52] but it remained unresolved.[53][54] During 2021, Ukrainian fatalities rose sharply and Russian forces massed around Ukraine’s borders.[55] Russia recognised the DPR and LPR as independent states on 21 February 2022 and deployed troops to those territories. On 24 February, Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, subsuming the war in Donbas into it.
Make no Mistake: Russia is trying to destroy Ukraine since 2014. Russia is the agressor and needs to put in its place.
What is there to negotiate? If all the russians leave ukraine, ukranians will probably stop shooting them…
Russia has always firmly opposed expansion of NATO, including the missiles and NATO troops that were lined up at their border with Ukraine’s participation.
All those countries that joined NATO, Their sovereignty doesn’t end where hurt russian fee-fees begin
if Russia doesnt like it, then maybe they should reflect on how they acted like savage barbarians to those people throughout history. Maybe they should reflect that they aren’t entiteld to an “Empire” or a “Sphere of Influence” or whatever they want to call it. Reflect on the fact that Eastern and Central europe are not pawns and slaves to a larger power. but nations with agency, hopes, dreams and goals.
but they wont, Imperialism, Warmongering, and Genocide are married to the current excuse of “Russian Culture”
If it was about their sovereignty, it’s weird that you don’t mind NATO attacking their sovereignty to install pro-western politicians through corruption or straight up coups. “Sovereignty” only seems to matter when it’s anti-Russian.
It’s not about feelings. There were many agreements for NATO not to expand. They did it anyway. There are consequences for that.
Please educate me. Which countries had pro-western politicians “Installed”
And if you’re already typing Ukraine, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
With maybe the exception of Serbia, Russia has been antagonistic and Imperialistic towards Europe for CENTURIES. Theres a reason Russia finds itself fighting against most/all of Europe every century. You need only ask the butchered populations of Eastern Europe who found themselves as Russian subjects at any point in history. The only reason they were ever friendly with Serbia, was because the Serbs are like a microchasm of the same thing the Russians did. Mini-mes, if you will.
you want to scream America bad, NATO bad, fine. but remove both of them from the equation, it wouldnt change the fact that the continent distrusts Russia for a reason.
Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.
Oh boy
So if they installed pro-western politicians in Ukraine, Why was the president of Ukraine at the time of Euromaidan checks notes Viktor Yanukovitch? the Pro-Russian fraudster who was once removed from the presidency after having cheated in the elections. and even afterward, managed to ratfuck his way into a term later on in 2010. Only to get Impeached and removed from power By his own government after he ordered the Berkut and Internal Troops to use lethal force against protestors.
this tired argument of western coups against these ex soviet countries always forgets to address the fact that a couple of suspicious phonecalls in embassies doesn’t hold the same power as millions of people taking to the streets over a government doing something that is widely unpopular.
if the CIA and all these other groups people accuse of toppling governments were as competent as fiction made them out to be, Joe Biden would still be President, Putin would be dead, Russia would be a balkanized state, and the Ukraine war would probably never have happened, and if it did, it would have been over by now with a Ukrainian victory.
There were many agreements for NATO not to expand.
Oh were there?
That’s interesting, considering how controversial it still is whether oral agreements ever existed in the first place. What isn’t controversial is of course that being oral-only, they can hardly be binding or transactionary. That is to say, the failure was to never transfer these agreements - if they even existed - into writing, bilaterally as that’s how you’d have to do it.
“We didn’t agree in writing” didn’t seem to prevent a war from breaking the agreement.
