Zelensky tells CNN the war will not end so long as Crimea is occupied
You said,
… Zelensky is right … War isn’t right
Again, Crimea was lost to Ukraine in 2014. Taking Crimea means gaining ground that Ukraine did not hold before the war. This goal will prolong, not shorten the tragedy. Therefore, showing agreement with this goal means that while you say war is bad, you’re materially okay with war so long as it’s against people you don’t like. That’s inconsistent.
Ideally they wouldn’t even need to fight back the conquered areas. Putin or his successor should retreat so peace can be negotiated.
And, materially, they don’t have to fight for them. All they have to do is comply with the Minsk agreements. If Russia were then to renege and continue the war, things might be different.
It’s unlikely that Putin’s successor would do something substantially different. They might prosecute the action differently but they are still likely to prosecute the action. Arguments that see redemption in a successor to Putin fail to (a) treat the Russian people seriously, as capable, autonomous actors, and (b) fail to take Russia’s concerns seriously re: NATO expansion, NATO-led coups, the Nazi problem, and the well documented conflict in eastern Ukraine from ~2014 until this war.
The war is wrong and the quickest most effective end to it is usa’s exit, since usa started the war in 2014.
It is also horrible that they prop up nazis in ukraine for their war. It’s hardly believable that boris johnson would ever let zelensky come to the negotiation table.
Which bit is untrue? What assumptions have I made? I’m not trying to make assumptions about you. I’m unpacking what you said to show that the implications are inconsistent.
If Zelensky is right and he wants to continue the war until he regains territory lost before he came into power, then it follows that continuing a war is the right thing to do. That is inconsistent with the claim that ‘war isn’t right’. Both claims cannot be true at the same time. Perhaps you didn’t mean to say that Zelensky is right?
It’s hardly believable that a nazi Putin would denazify anything
Nevertheless, it’s Russia’s stated aim in this war. What does Ukraine have to lose by calling Putin’s bluff by complying with the Minsk agreement? At the very least, they win the moral high ground and can shout, ‘Aha, we told you Putin was lying; all he wanted was war all along.’ I’ll ignore for now the fact that Germany and France have admitted that they never intended for Ukraine to comply with Minsk, never mind what Russia planned.
So the answer is to keep fighting until Ukraine gains more land than it started with? That doesn’t sound very anti-war to me.
No, Ukraine should stop at their borders as Zelensky here states. It doesn’t need to do what Russia has done.
Ideally they wouldn’t even need to fight back the conquered areas. Putin or his successor should retreat so peace can be negotiated.
In summary, the workers and the people of Russia and Ukraine should be free from the exploitation of the bourgeoisie
The OP screenshot reads:
You said,
Again, Crimea was lost to Ukraine in 2014. Taking Crimea means gaining ground that Ukraine did not hold before the war. This goal will prolong, not shorten the tragedy. Therefore, showing agreement with this goal means that while you say war is bad, you’re materially okay with war so long as it’s against people you don’t like. That’s inconsistent.
And, materially, they don’t have to fight for them. All they have to do is comply with the Minsk agreements. If Russia were then to renege and continue the war, things might be different.
It’s unlikely that Putin’s successor would do something substantially different. They might prosecute the action differently but they are still likely to prosecute the action. Arguments that see redemption in a successor to Putin fail to (a) treat the Russian people seriously, as capable, autonomous actors, and (b) fail to take Russia’s concerns seriously re: NATO expansion, NATO-led coups, the Nazi problem, and the well documented conflict in eastern Ukraine from ~2014 until this war.
Untrue. Please avoid assumptions that don’t relate to my comments.
The war is wrong and the quickest most humane end to it is Russia’s exit. Since it’s beginning in '14.
It is also horrible that they prop nazis around world for their excuses. It’s hardly believable that a nazi Putin would denazify anything
The war is wrong and the quickest most effective end to it is usa’s exit, since usa started the war in 2014.
It is also horrible that they prop up nazis in ukraine for their war. It’s hardly believable that boris johnson would ever let zelensky come to the negotiation table.
Which bit is untrue? What assumptions have I made? I’m not trying to make assumptions about you. I’m unpacking what you said to show that the implications are inconsistent.
If Zelensky is right and he wants to continue the war until he regains territory lost before he came into power, then it follows that continuing a war is the right thing to do. That is inconsistent with the claim that ‘war isn’t right’. Both claims cannot be true at the same time. Perhaps you didn’t mean to say that Zelensky is right?
Nevertheless, it’s Russia’s stated aim in this war. What does Ukraine have to lose by calling Putin’s bluff by complying with the Minsk agreement? At the very least, they win the moral high ground and can shout, ‘Aha, we told you Putin was lying; all he wanted was war all along.’ I’ll ignore for now the fact that Germany and France have admitted that they never intended for Ukraine to comply with Minsk, never mind what Russia planned.