Quote (bogie160 @ 18 Sep 2023 03:51)
You're far too caught up in this emotionally. It's not a question of rewarding or not rewarding Russia, it's a question of what both sides hold. Fairness is defined by impartiality and objectivity. The Russians objectively hold a great deal of Ukrainian land, and by any impartial observer are not in danger of a sudden collapse. In a fair negotiation, why should they accept less than what they have right now?
To your second question, is Russia likely to have to pay reparations to Ukraine? Obviously not. So what is Ukraine actually giving up? Please try to answer this concisely.
do you genuinely not realise that you're not even trying to find a fair / impartial / objective compromise, but that you're strictly defending russia's position and demands? you ARE aware that crimea and donbas are, in fact, ukrainian territories - as acknowledged by countless international agreements and treaties, many of which signed by pootin's russia, specifically guaranteeing ukraine's territorial integrity and political independence, right?
by dodging my question and framing what YOU would consider a "fair deal" exclusively with "what can russia be militarily forced to concede at this very moment" in mind, you're not suggesting a "peace deal", but simply terms of ukraine's surrender. which, to be fair, very much seems to be russia's current position on the issue.
so unless ukraine surrenders unconditionally (for which there is currently no indication), there simply is no peace to be had with russia. meaning pootins troops will continue to murder, rape, torture, loot, and destroy - or "liberate", as you would probably call it, until one side simply can't keep this insanity going...
man, tucker has really done a number on you guys... no wonder he's a hero in russia...
This post was edited by fender on Sep 17 2023 09:29pm