Like, if Ukraine let Russia have specific regions and it meant millions of people not dying, would people go for it?
In the end, it’s the people who fight that determine if the thing they are fighting for is worth their lives. Dying for some lines on the map sounds bad, but if it were only lines on the map, then the people probably wouldn't choose to die for them, would they?
Nobody wants to die, but if someone is ready to give up their life for some cause, then who are you to tell them they can't?
It's the fate of Ukrainians that is at stake and its the Ukrainians that determine if changing that fate is worth the costs of their lives.
It is a very subjective topic, however. I might save my family even if it meant the death of hundreds of people, or not, it is a moral dilemma for sure. I do not have an answer.
Some people may believe "less people dying" is always favorable.
From what I gathered, people above a certain age say that their country was better under Soviet Union. Additionally, people say (probably rightly so) that Orbán is pro-Putin. Why is it the case?
Rather a minority of people above a certain age. Like, these days you can go to the shop and buy a banana. Other things, too. I still remember the queues, at the end of which... there was nothing.
Assuming this is true, it's because these are soviet leftovers who had a low education, were indoctrinated from a young age, and lived during the dream phase where you were told what to do, where to live, etc. Then came the bill when everything collapsed because this didn't work. I can make everybody happy tomorrow by emptying the state coffers and institutionalizing national NEETDOM, can't promise our happiness will last long but we can try! And regardless of what they think, it was shit.
Edit: about "why is Orban pro-putin?", this is a joke right?
No, genuine question, he is Eastern European. Let us go further, they claim Hungary is pro-Russian, how come?
In fact, you're so wrong that we're no longer in the realm of having opinions. You're objectively wrong. Look up comparisons of the economic growth of nations to the west of the Berlin Wall and to its east. Germany's alone would suffice, but have at it.
And then you think bringing up outliers means anything... If chess is so difficult why is Magnus Carlsen so good at it? Therefore, chess is an easy game, gotcha. yawn
But if you consider the majority of the elderly in villages as outliers, then have at it.
It does not change the fact that many of them said that life was better in Soviet Union.
How am I objectively wrong? All I claimed was that some people preferred their life in Soviet Union. I think you read too much into it.
Sometimes, it's simply not possible to have both.
Do you truly expect Ukraine to just roll over?
Can you genuinely not imagine being under the thumb of a dictator who sends you off to die?
Elsewhere in this thread you're responding to me as if don't even seem to accept that this can occur despite the fact that it already has.
You accused others with having a voice of moral superiority, but your "I did not pick a side" is just that.
There are only two possible outcomes to this war. Either Ukraine still exists as a sovereign nation, or it doesn't. The first will require continued fighting. There is no possibility for Ukraine to remain sovereign without violently kicking Russia out of its land.
Neutrality only supports aggressors.
What you described is black and white thinking, however, and there is much more to it than just "either Russia wins or does not win", pretty sure there can be a compromise, you know, a middle path, that is good enough for both parties and consequently there will be less deaths.
If people want to die for justice, so be it. Up to them, but:
Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Do you?
Because Russia is the invader. It lied about the troop movements being a prelude to invasion. It lied about the reasons for invading. It has committed, and continues to commit, war crimes. It has made nuclear threats to dissuade others from helping Ukraine defend itself. It has threatened Finland for daring to join NATO.
> pretty sure there can be a compromise
Why do you think this?
Russia can stop their unlawful invasion of a sovereign country any time they want. That they have not done so ought to be a QED that they don't want to stop.
> Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Would you talk about the invasion of your own country in the same vein?
I don't know where you live. USA? Imagine Russia had in 2014 annexed Alaska the way they've annexed Crimea, and in 2022 started trying the same on the states of Washington and Montana, and briefly had control of the I-90 as far as Chicago before being repelled.
If that happened, would you say "pretty sure there can be a compromise"?
The "compromise" Zelenskyy is offering Putin is: "get out of my country that you've illegally occupied, and I won't keep shooting drones into your oil refineries".
The "compromise" Putin is offering Zelenskyy is: "Be our puppet or die".
Nothing about Russian state behaviour looks like they're willing to behave. Not the military action, not the broad-daylight assassinations (not only in Ukraine, but also in Germany and the UK and Turkey), certainly not the war crimes.
Right now, the Russian government is acting, and talking, as if Ukraine isn't even a real country.
BTW you did not answer "Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?". They do it for justice, too. Who's justice? Perhaps not yours, but justice nonetheless.
> The "compromise" Zelenskyy is offering Putin is: "get out of my country that you've illegally occupied, and I won't keep shooting drones into your oil refineries". > The "compromise" Putin is offering Zelenskyy is: "Be our puppet or die".
As I said, black and white thinking. That is not how life works.
To have done "the same", he would have needed to force Russian citizens living in occupied Kursk to pick up guns and throw their lives away fighting other Russians. Which he didn't.
Russia did force people from occupied territories to fight in Ukraine.
Because short term survival means surrender, followed by the medium term getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country.
Is it not just speculation? Does it have any merits? Would he do it? What makes you think that it is going to happen, that he wants to do it? Could he actually attempt to do it?
Having already done it three times:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
3. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/russia-forces-ukrainians...
What is currently limiting him from going further is, specifically, the armed forces of Ukraine.
I am referring to NATO, UN, ICC, Amnesty International & Human Rights Organizations, global backslash, fear of uncontrollable consequences (wrt. current allies like China and India, as they are Russia's key trade partners).
So there are those deterrents: legal charges, sanctions, political pressure, military retaliation, geopolitical fallout, and internal resistance within Russia itself.
Even Russian oligarchs and elites might resist, fearing total international isolation.
There are many reasons to not be afraid of what we might believe Putin would do ("getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country" and so forth).
NATO only applies if they go specifically for a NATO country — which is why Ukraine wants into NATO in the first place, and why the invasion of Ukraine got Finland to join in a hurry. Also this is only a risk while NATO continues to still exist, which is threatened both because Trump has explicitly said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
And: https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-offshore-drilling-gul...
And: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/former-australian-pm...
But also Russia is starting to prepare for direct NATO confrontation anyway: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-accuses-west-push...
> UN
Russia is on the permanent security council, they have a veto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...
> ICC
Already has arrest warrants for them, can't escalate further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...
> Amnesty International & Human Rights Organizations, global backslash, fear of uncontrollable consequences (wrt. current allies like China and India, they are Russia's key trade partners).
None of this stopped them so far, why would it start?
Especially on trade: Russia is a petrostate, their main export is fuel, the invasion of Ukraine by itself sped up the European transition away from fossil fuels in general and their fossil fuels in particular, and everyone Russia does business with — including "allies", though that's too strong a word for their relationship with India — has every reason to take advantage of the price ceiling to get discounts even when they don't explicitly take part in the actual ceiling itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_crude_oil_price_c...
> There are many reasons to not be afraid of what we might believe Putin would do ("getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country" and so forth).
Why are you ignoring the evidence that this has already happened three times?
Why do you insist on treating this as a hypothetical?
It's about living in a democracy.
Is it worth dying to ensure your children live in a democracy where they have control over their future?
Or is it better to allow a dictatorship like Russia to engulf your country, and your children grow up under authoritarianism?
It's not boundaries as much as an invading political system you despise.
So I'm talking about those specific territories -- all of Ukraine.
You don't really think that giving up the territory Russia has taken already is going to stop Russia from advancing further?
> You don't really think that giving up the territory Russia has taken already is going to stop Russia from advancing further?
I honestly do not know. If they do, then it requires military intervention.
Yes.
> If they do, then it requires military intervention.
Yes. That is the military intervention that Ukraine is continuing to take against Russia currently.
Does it all make sense now? Why Ukraine shouldn't just let itself be invaded, in order to avoid deaths?
People are willing to fight for freedom, even if they might die in the process.
By your logic, you're saying everyone should just surrender to violent bullies. Most people don't think that kind of subjugation is a life worth living -- not if they can help it.
Because when you wrote:
> One of them will have to stop, if neither does, there will be more bloodshed, that is a given, right? If Putin does not stop, shouldn't Zelensky do?
You can say in WWII, if Hitler does not stop, then shouldn't Churchill/FDR/etc. stop to avoid more bloodshed?
It's the same thing. It's an expansionist European land grab by a dictator. Just take how you understand WWII and apply it to this conflict.
So stopping Hitler through whatever means necessary results in less deaths, right? That was my initial point: less deaths.
You think that would have been preferred then? You would prefer that today we would live under a fascist Third Reich, instead of democracies, so that we could have saved the lives of those who fought in WWII?
I mean, you're free to prefer that. But everyone who fought did it because they thought it was worth it to die, to save democracy so they and their children and their children's children wouldn't have to live under fascist rulers from another nation.
Maybe you don't think Ukranians should fight. But Ukranians clearly believe it's worth it. And people in the country honor those who die for it. And I do too.