“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.
They keep attacking because there is no diplomacy. Russia and the US would have to iron it out. If there was open diplomacy and a strong NATO. What do you think will happen if they attack Ukraine again?
We keep ignoring deplomacy and point the finger at russia.
Ukraine surrendered nuclear weapons as a diplomatic concession - you can’t credibly argue that there’s no diplomacy.
With a nuclear deterrent either from Ukraine or NATO, Russia would be less likely to attack.
I’ll absolutely point the finger at Russia when they’re the one pissing on the diplomatic efforts, tearing up treaties, memoranda, and agreements, and invading their neighbours while threatening nuclear war and committing a bunch of warcrimes - how is this anyone’s fault but theirs?
The Clinton administration demonstrated strong diplomatic capabilities in 1994.
Regarding recent geopolitical tensions, it raises important questions, such as why Russia is engaging in conflicts with smaller neighboring countries.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that many of the gas and oil pipelines connecting Russia to the European Union pass through Ukraine. There have been allegations over the years that Ukraine has siphoned gas or oil from these pipelines, contributing to longstanding disputes. You are free to assign blame as you see fit, but I encourage you to consider multiple perspectives rather than relying solely on one side’s narrative.
You mean when Clinton negotiated with Yeltsin (not super-relevant) to not target strategic missiles at one another (not verifiable, and reversible in moments)?
To grab resources, restore the Russian empires old borders on line with long-standing doctrine, and to distract from domestic issues that would threaten Putin’s interests.
Credible allegations? This isn’t super-hard to verify, and even if it were true, it’s no reason to annex Ukraine.
I’ve considered multiple perspectives, and like a reasonable person, discarded the invalid ones rather than treating flagrantly dishonest propaganda and baseless speculation/fantasy as important considerations that need to be accommodated.
Where we differ is in our perspectives. You come from a noble place, advocating for the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and even the potential removal of Putin. While this outcome is ideal, it may not be realistic in the short term. Meanwhile, countless lives are being lost, and the suffering continues.
The United States stands to benefit the longer this conflict persists, showing little interest in pursuing a path to peace. While it positions itself as Ukraine’s ally, it simultaneously sends Ukraine into a prolonged struggle against a vastly larger adversary.
This war arguably began in 2008, when NATO promised eventual membership to Ukraine and Georgia but failed to follow through. Now, NATO appears to be watching from the sidelines as Ukraine fights on its behalf at the front lines."
Russia has torn up every agreement it’s been party to.
Russia’s preconditions for a diplomatic negotiation is Ukraine’s total surrender (in the context of an invasion).
Russia is in no way entitled to attempt to forcefully annex Ukrainian territory.
Russia is in no way entitled to dictate what explicitly defensive strategic alliances its neighbours enter into.
With those simple facts in mind…
If the Ukrainians wish to resist (and they clearly do), that’s their prerogative. It’s strategically and morally correct for the US to help them resist.
Correct - but that’s an argument to continue to offer support not stop it.
By surrendering on Ukraine’s behalf to get to the negotiation table to draw up another agreement that will inevitably be torn up? By stopping support and throwing to the bears? What would this look like to you?
By providing military support like an ally.
The US isn’t sending Ukraine to war - it’s giving Ukraine the means to defend itself from a war that’s being waged on them - which it’s doing.
2008? Wasn’t that when Russia invaded Georgia? There’s a pattern here… Refer to point 4 - what right does Russia have to invade a neighbor for entering an explicitly and historically defensive alliance? How did NATO start the war, exactly? They should have followed through, but that’s beside the point.
…don’t forget that Russia’s aggression is driving more countries to join for obvious reasons. Intervention in this context isn’t expected of/by NATO - it’s a defensive alliance, and Ukraine isn’t a member state - it’s beyond their mandate. Such an intervention would be painted as reaching beyond a defensive posture, justifying a lot of Russia’s nonsense, and arguably hostility, making it a questionable move that I’m not going to browbeat them for. In short, it would be diplomatically catastrophic.