Comment on Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

• ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  “NATO expansion was legal but predictably provocative. Russia’s response was entirely predictable, if illegal, and has proven very costly to it. Ukraine’s de facto military integration into NATO has resulted in its devastation.”

  From your suggested reading, this stood out to me. The crux of any argument in Russia’s favour seems to be that they were unhappy at the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, and thus felt justified acting preemptively. But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make, so any aggression on their part is not defensible on those grounds, in my opinion.

  source

  • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make

    Literally what are you smoking. Look at reality. Tell me they weren’t in a position to make that demand now that they’ve asserted themselves.

    source

    • ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Firstly, basing your opinion of someone on the instance they signed up with is…interesting.

      Secondly, I didn’t mean that in the sense of they literally couldn’t make the demand, but that Russia danced Ukraine not join NATO, despite having no standing to make such a demand. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, they didn’t need permission from Russia. Even the quoted article acknowledges that Russia had no grounds for an invasion, and it’s generally in support of Russia’s position.

      source
• Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  And which one would you say touches the heart of the matter of what you say? My time is limited.

  source

  • fallowseed@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    i guess the many lessons one is a good start and broad

    source

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Sorry to hear you’re being targeted like that. Not cool. On the bright side, the points are made up and don’t matter here.

      I’ve have read through the essay and I think that the article lends itself to confusion but help me out. Kyiv does want a military resolution but only to rule its dissenting territories, which is arguably a sovereign right when you have your insecure neighbor fueling dissidents, right? This is what was giving me trouble before, because Zelenskyy has been actively calling for peace plans for a few years now. You’re almost suggesting that he wants to continue fighting Russia on behalf of the UN. That’s one hell of a noble sacrifice that’s not quite in their best interest. If anything, the author suggests Zelenskyy has been played like a fiddle. Or am I missing something?

      source