That sounds like something my mother says - Ukrainians should just surrender to save themselves. Forgetting that if we did that as a country at several points in our history in recent times neither one of us would be even alive. Resistance to invasion is the only way.
>>The war is destroying their economy.
Oh no poor Russians and their economy. You say it like they were forced to invade. As someone else said - not invading Ukraine would have cost them exactly zero rubles.
It is a simple matter of what Ukraine wants more, saving lives or being uncompromising.
>Oh no poor Russians and their economy. You say it like they were forced to invade.
You missed or simply ignored the point. The point was not poor Russia, but why they would agree to a peace deal and why they can't conquer and hold Ukraine.
Yes, I think people should be "uncompromising" about saving their homeland from invasion.
If you excuse my comparison - your advice sounds like telling a person being raped to just stop struggling, it will end sooner that way. Ukraine is currently being invaded by Russia - they should fight with all their might to destroy the invader. I personally find the suggestion that "surrendering saves lives" offensive - if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died, not less. It's magical wishful thinking that belongs in fantasy books not in the real world.
>>>>I mean if richer more advanced country is going to conquer my country I am certainly not going to fight it
I will re-iterate that this statement can be only said by someone with absolutely no sense of self-preservation.
Why, If you if your homeland is saved from invasion either way? A peace deal and withdraw saves the country, and a long war followed by withdraw saves the country.
>If you excuse my comparison - your advice sounds like telling a person being raped to just stop struggling, it will end sooner that way. Ukraine is currently being invaded by Russia - they should fight with all their might to destroy the invader.
I'm not talking about surrender. I'm talking about peace where Russia goes home and Ukraine is an independent country. This isn't not passively being raped, it is doing something to stop the rape immediately.
>if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died, not less.
IF that's true, then of course you shouldn't surrender! Again, the question is not of surrender, but a peace deal and Russian withdrawal. Is there no point were compromise is possible? Would you not give $1 to Russia to go home, end the war, and save countless lives?
My point is you don't know that and you have absolutely no way of knowing it to any degree of certainty. None of us do. The difference is that you think that's a likely scenario while I think that's the most unlikely one.
What I do know is:
Russia has said for more than a decade it would invade Ukraine if NATO moved in.
It offered to call off the invasion in January if NATO stopped arming Ukraine.
And throughout the war, Russia has offered to leave if Ukraine said it will keep NATO out.
People can disagree over if it is a reasonable request, but I think it is at least very clear what Russia wants. I think there is a good chance that would would leave if Ukraine accepts the peace terms they have been offering.
NATO hasn't moved into Ukraine and Russia has attacked it nevertheless.
> It offered to call off the invasion in January if NATO stopped arming Ukraine.
"We won't invade if you weaken your defenses" is ... not a very convincing "offer" from a country that has already invaded you in the recent past.
> And throughout the war, Russia has offered to leave if Ukraine said it will keep NATO out.
That's not the only Russian demand, no. And crucially, the demands mean Russia can just repeat the same thing again whenever it feels like trying again, against a Ukraine they forced to be less able to defend itself (because as you've established above, arming itself is violating neutrality if it obtains weapons from the west). Oops, again didn't elect a puppet in the next election and won't just turn into Belarus 2.0? How unfortunate, needs denazification again, sorry. But sure, you're "just pointing out that Ukraine can make Russia go home tomorrow.", and all will be fine. You're pretending a massive gamble is an obvious decision.
>NATO hasn't moved into Ukraine and Russia has attacked it nevertheless.
NATO/ Primarily the US has moved $billions of weapons and thousands of troops into Ukraine year after year and conducted joint war exercises for war with Russia.
>"We won't invade if you weaken your defenses" is ... not a very convincing "offer" from a country that has already invaded you in the recent past
I totally agree that is a tough pill to swallow, but perhaps not insurmountable. I don't have the solutions, but perhaps with a demilitarization of the boarder or third party assurances.
you see there is difference between you and other people, many of us don't care about their "homeland", do you think I would return to my home countries to fight for it? do you think I would fight for country I'm living in? only thing I'd fight for is my own family, I see no reason to fight over some country concept, I'm flexible I can either adapt or leave for different country
>if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died
you can't possibly know that
I think I can, because extermination of people of my nation was explicitly Hitler's goal.
what we know is the countries which agreed to be Nazi states (Slovakia for instance) were pretty much unaffected by war until the very end (if they switched sides) and more people died during fights with allies/germans in last few months than during years of war
for instance there were pretty much no victims in my hometown from Nazis, while Allied bombing at the very end of war killed 1/3 of civilian population of my hometown, but s*t happens, right?
meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2?
I live right outside Auschwitz, I think the "execution" part worked out just fine for Nazis. Poland was very much on the agenda for total extermination by Hitler.
Either way, I can't believe anyone is actually suggesting that not fighting Nazis in WW2 might have been the better choice by anyone. It's truly shocking.
>>meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2?
Like, no personal offence, but it shows absolutely 0 understanding of 20th century history in Europe to even say such a statement. Nazi Germany was the loser. There is no question about it. Marshall plan was put in place to make sure WW2 won't happen again, as clearly the treatment of Germany post WW1 has contributed to the outbreak of another world war. Again, I'm truly shocked there can be even a discussion about "who really is the winner here". Not Germany. Not by a long shot.
Germany lost WW2 - few decades later one of the strongest countries in Europe
yes, this really shows who is the winner and the loser of the war and will for sure discourage anyone from starting another war
What a trollish way of making it Ukraine's fault. "The victim wouldn't have been killed if she just didn't resist the rapist."
the problem with UA is they are resisting while they are more and more admitting they will agree to rape in the end anyway, but hey it's just some ordinary men dying, politicians sending them to death are safe and making video calls with standing ovations
The solution to that is for Russians to leave or get killed.
Let's make something very clear - there was literally nothing that any country could have done to just "make the Nazis march back to Germany" other than beating them to a bloody pulp, and I don't believe there's anything realistic that can be done right now to make Russia march back to where they came from, other than showing them we won't accept such aggression in modern day Europe. One of their demands at the start was that Poland and other Baltic countries that joined NATO most recently should leave it, they would call off the invasion then. That's not a reasonable request and it will not happen, and saying "but it would prevent all these deaths in Ukraine!" Is just dishonest and frankly quite offensive to Ukrainians. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I agree WWII is a poor analogy for the Ukrainian war, which is quite different, but I did not pose the question.
>I don't believe there's anything realistic that can be done right now to make Russia march back to where they came from, other than showing them we won't accept such aggression in modern day Europe.
This is where we fundamentally differ. As in the other thread, I think that Russia would pack up their bags and go home if Ukraine agrees to stay neutral with respect to NATO, and perhaps cede Crimea and Donbas to Russia. I gather that you think this is not the case.
>One of their demands at the start was that Poland and other Baltic countries that joined NATO most recently should leave it, they would call the invasion then
Not that they should leave NATO, but that the US would reduce their troops there, in exchange for Russia drawing down troops from its boarder. This was proposed as a path to lowering tensions and avoid war in Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guaran...
A written promise isn't an insurmountable barrier.
> I don't see why Ukraine should promise either thing
To save countless Ukrainian lives
>stop Russia from taking the entire country anyway.
Russia clearly would have a hard time taking and holding the country. The war is destroying their economy. They would be happy to get their objective and leave.