Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[jaichind]

https://babel.ua/en/news/98596-a-bank-of-ukrainian-fonts-will-appear-in-ukraine-at-the-state-level

"A bank of Ukrainian fonts will appear in Ukraine at the state level"

"Ukraine has long had a ban on the use of the Russian language in official records, so it is worth getting rid of the Russian system of glyphs," he noted.

I think the idea is for the official use of the Izhitsa font which is associated with Russia to be replaced with the Volja font.  Of course, it will still be Cyrillic.  I think the next step should be for Ukraine to get rid of Cyrillic and switch over to a Latin script.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1704058230719004719
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1704071048033906837

[Virginiá]

https://twitter.com/deaidua/status/1704111963872104523

[pppolitics]

What is this?

https://twitter.com/EvgeniaKovda/status/1703900673224388940

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1704067803882356748

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

[pppolitics]

Remember, Russia supposedly has the world's #2 military.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1704125813489123791

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Because you forgot “West bad” so Russia can do whatever it wants. Btw I do love how Red Velvet will on occasion act like he doesn’t care about the war but think his country should be able to trade with Russia without being judged but then does stuff like this that clearly shows he’s pro-Russia

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

What is this?

https://twitter.com/EvgeniaKovda/status/1703900673224388940

Putin Youth.

This kind of brainwashing wasn't going on 10 years ago, certainly not to this level, genuinely disturbing.

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Greedy of what? Brazil isn’t at war with anyone. And reason for this is exactly because we’re a peaceful country that wants to keep good relations with everyone. Which is something that every country, but especially ones that share land borders with more powerful countries than them, should do even if only for its strategic safety sake.

You people can only speak of war and weapons instead of ending this through a negotiated deal to settle things immediately. Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

As always, it’s regular people who pay the price with their lives while types like Putin and Zelensky can keep up with their dick measuring contest.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Greedy of what? Brazil isn’t at war with anyone. And reason for this is exactly because we’re a peaceful country that wants to keep good relations with everyone. Which is something that every country, but especially ones that share land borders with more powerful countries than them, should do even if only for its strategic safety sake.

You people can only speak of war and weapons instead of ending this through a negotiated deal to settle things immediately. Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

As always, it’s regular people who pay the price with their lives while types like Putin and Zelensky can keep up with their dick measuring contest.

Oh please you don’t a fig for the people of Ukraine or you wouldn’t call your own countrymen who support them “self hating European bootlickers” or insinuate as you did in here in the bold that they somehow brought the war on themselves. This is also further shown by the fact the reason people here talk about arming Ukraine is that is what their people want! They don’t want to freeze the conflict along its current lines because Russia will just come back later after rebuilding their military on top of doing god knows what to the local Ukrainians in the region. Which funny enough completely undermines your “Land > People” argument

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Greedy of what? Brazil isn’t at war with anyone. And reason for this is exactly because we’re a peaceful country that wants to keep good relations with everyone. Which is something that every country, but especially ones that share land borders with more powerful countries than them, should do even if only for its strategic safety sake.

You people can only speak of war and weapons instead of ending this through a negotiated deal to settle things immediately. Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

As always, it’s regular people who pay the price with their lives while types like Putin and Zelensky can keep up with their dick measuring contest.

Enough with your hypocrisy.

Ukraine was a “peaceful country” and wasn’t “at war with anyone” until Russia invaded.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status/1704156454742094092

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/geoconfirmed/status/1704175695633486164?s=12

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1704052247699542265?s=20

[bilaps]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Greedy of what? Brazil isn’t at war with anyone. And reason for this is exactly because we’re a peaceful country that wants to keep good relations with everyone. Which is something that every country, but especially ones that share land borders with more powerful countries than them, should do even if only for its strategic safety sake.

You people can only speak of war and weapons instead of ending this through a negotiated deal to settle things immediately. Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

As always, it’s regular people who pay the price with their lives while types like Putin and Zelensky can keep up with their dick measuring contest.

Enough with your hypocrisy.

Ukraine was a “peaceful country” and wasn’t “at war with anyone” until Russia invaded.

It wasn't at war with anyone besides being in a civil war.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Greedy of what? Brazil isn’t at war with anyone. And reason for this is exactly because we’re a peaceful country that wants to keep good relations with everyone. Which is something that every country, but especially ones that share land borders with more powerful countries than them, should do even if only for its strategic safety sake.

You people can only speak of war and weapons instead of ending this through a negotiated deal to settle things immediately. Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

As always, it’s regular people who pay the price with their lives while types like Putin and Zelensky can keep up with their dick measuring contest.

Enough with your hypocrisy.

Ukraine was a “peaceful country” and wasn’t “at war with anyone” until Russia invaded.

It wasn't at war with anyone besides being in a civil war.

What a load of vatnik bs. Russia troops were literally fighting alongside rebels from day 1

[bilaps]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Greedy of what? Brazil isn’t at war with anyone. And reason for this is exactly because we’re a peaceful country that wants to keep good relations with everyone. Which is something that every country, but especially ones that share land borders with more powerful countries than them, should do even if only for its strategic safety sake.

You people can only speak of war and weapons instead of ending this through a negotiated deal to settle things immediately. Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

As always, it’s regular people who pay the price with their lives while types like Putin and Zelensky can keep up with their dick measuring contest.

Enough with your hypocrisy.

Ukraine was a “peaceful country” and wasn’t “at war with anyone” until Russia invaded.

It wasn't at war with anyone besides being in a civil war.

What a load of vatnik bs. Russia troops were literally fighting alongside rebels from day 1

Vvvvatnik this and vatnik that. Are you a moron, do you not know anything else to write?

From which country did this rebels came?

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Greedy of what? Brazil isn’t at war with anyone. And reason for this is exactly because we’re a peaceful country that wants to keep good relations with everyone. Which is something that every country, but especially ones that share land borders with more powerful countries than them, should do even if only for its strategic safety sake.

You people can only speak of war and weapons instead of ending this through a negotiated deal to settle things immediately. Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

As always, it’s regular people who pay the price with their lives while types like Putin and Zelensky can keep up with their dick measuring contest.

Enough with your hypocrisy.

Ukraine was a “peaceful country” and wasn’t “at war with anyone” until Russia invaded.

It wasn't at war with anyone besides being in a civil war.

What a load of vatnik bs. Russia troops were literally fighting alongside rebels from day 1

Vvvvatnik this and vatnik that. Are you a moron, do you not know anything else to write?

From which country did this rebels came?

Oh right I forgot claiming that what happened in the Donbas was a legitimate civil war that Russia didn’t incited is an original thought 🙄

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Why is Brazil being so greedy?

Why doesn't Brazil give up 20% of its territories to other countries?

Greedy of what? Brazil isn’t at war with anyone. And reason for this is exactly because we’re a peaceful country that wants to keep good relations with everyone. Which is something that every country, but especially ones that share land borders with more powerful countries than them, should do even if only for its strategic safety sake.

You people can only speak of war and weapons instead of ending this through a negotiated deal to settle things immediately. Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

As always, it’s regular people who pay the price with their lives while types like Putin and Zelensky can keep up with their dick measuring contest.

Enough with your hypocrisy.

Ukraine was a “peaceful country” and wasn’t “at war with anyone” until Russia invaded.

It wasn't at war with anyone besides being in a civil war.

Lies.

Even Russia has long admitted that "little green men" are Russian agents.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/vladimir-putin-admits-russian-military-presence-ukraine

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

Oh seriously stfu. You aren't worthy to lick his boots.

[Virginiá]

Land > People. This isn’t sustainable though, so I wonder how long this insanity will this go?

What makes you think Russia would even honor a negotiated settlement in the medium to long term? A lot of Ukrainians believe that a "deal" would only be valid for as long as it takes Russia to regroup & rebuild its military and formulate a new strategy to accomplish its original goal. Ukraine will find itself preoccupied with rebuilding afterwards and unable to keep their population mobilized for war longer than Russia. Western aid in the event of another conflict might not come as easily, and depending on the time frame, the west could be preoccupied by China/Taiwan. Ukraine could once again find themselves in a weaker position when Russia decides to give it another try, but this time without significant military aid to back them up.

Negotiations need to be seen as a valid path to peace by Ukrainians because the consequences of a bad decision here are very grave.

[2952-0-0]

...the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat.

"We shouldn't defeat them, because it will hurt their feelings."



If Putin wants to, he can spin that as a "successful completion of the Special Military Operation", and that "the heroic Russian army has defeated the Ukrainian Nazis and NATO in their plot to invade and destroy the Russian motherland", or other contrived nonsense. How Putin deals with that at home is purely an internal matter of no concern to anyone else.

[WalterWhite]

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1703561739504067067

What a horrible human being. He’s deflecting from and distorting the question. He was asked if he would give up ANY land for the sake of peace and the interviewer even stresses it - “what if it’s just Crimea?”.

Then Zelenskyy proceeds with an emotional story about a pregnant woman and says “Can I tell them that Russia can take it ALL?”. When the interviewer clearly wasn’t referring to ALL, only Crimea.

I think it’s somewhat ~normal~ for leaders to value their land more than their human capital but he could’ve used some excuse about not validating Russia for the future or something. With this answer he just proved he’s a manipulative artist who doesn’t give a damn about his people fighting a never-ending war that is destroying them even if it’s for a piece of land that Russia effectively already controlled.

The longer people delay negotiation talks out of pride, the worse the consequences will be for all the involved: Ukraine, Russia AND Europe as a whole too. Each side needs to go to negotiation table willing to give up something.

For Ukraine, the most important thing is obviously getting Russia to agree to leave the country and to agree to a NATO membership. For Russia, is obviously being able to claim a “win” domestically by controlling the southern “Russian” areas they already occupy that create a land bridge to Crimea. It’s exactly because it’s not the ideal resolution for any of the sides that it’s the only possible conclusion.

You need other countries mediating this though, with Westerners guaranteeing instant Ukrainian access to NATO after the treaty is signed. Even if there won’t be “peace”, it’s important to create a ceasefire IMMEDIATELY between the countries and assure that non-occupied Ukraine is in NATO after this. You save easily majority of Ukraine like this but also Moldova. Ukraine would also still have sea access through Odessa, which Russians still don’t occupy.

Other options like a full Ukrainian or Russian defeat are NOT positive outcomes for the world. The first validates the logic of war of expansions and the latter radicalizes Russia further more because they will not simply accept defeat. Yet we’re still having childish discussions about erasing the entire Ukrainian Male population because populist nationalist guy won’t even accept that he won’t get Crimea back.

1) From the lens of self-determination, the people in Ukraine clearly do not want to be annexed by Russia and support the Ukrainian military's efforts against the Russian military. This is seen not only in the willingness of Ukrainian soldiers to fight the Russian army (remember that Ukraine was expected to be steamrolled by the much stronger Russian military), but also in Zelensky's approval rating (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1100076/volodymyr-zelensky-s-approval-rating-ukraine/): his approval rating has consistently exceeded over 90% throughout the entire war, indicating a very strong "rally around the flag" phenomenon.

1a) Ukrainians in every portion of the country support Zelensky's handling of the war and thus are on Ukraine's side. Data indicate that >90% of people in the Western and Central parts of Ukraine along with >80% of people in the Eastern and Southern parts of Ukraine (the areas with the highest Russian populations) support Zelensky's handling of the war (and thus SUPPORT Ukraine's continued fight against Russia). The data indicate that there is no significant geographic portion of the country that wants to be annexed by Russia.

2) Giving imperialist leaders more territory in peace agreements has historically had negative outcomes. The willingness of the Allied Powers to let Hitler annex portions of Czechoslovakia (under very similar pretenses to which Putin is trying to annex portions of Ukraine) ultimately led to Hitler conquering most of Europe. In recent times, Russia saw the unwillingness of other countries to provide military aid to Georgia and Ukraine during the 2008 and 2014 invasions respectively as a green light for further imperialist actions (e.g. the full-scale invasion in 2022). If an ultimate peace deal between Russia and Ukraine includes territorial concessions that favor Russia, Russia would reasonably conclude that invading countries leads to territorial acquisition, and the hawkish Putin would likely attempt to continue this jingoistic foreign policy. A peace agreement that gives Russia more territory and does not include preventative measures to stop Russia from invading Ukraine again (such as possibly Ukrainian troops at the border) would likely cost more lives in the long run as Russia would view said peace agreement as a permit for future invasions.

3) Trends are indicating that the tides of the war are in Ukraine's favor; this is unlikely to be a forever war. Over the past few months, the Ukrainian army has liberated more territory than the Russian army conquered. In fact, reports from @War_Mapper indicate that the Russian army has not conquered any territory in over a month. The more the war progresses, the worse the outcome for Russia would likely be. Additionally, based on Russia's recent history with peace agreements (notably the Minsk agreements), Russia would be unlikely to accept and honor a peace deal unless the Russian army keeps experiencing territorial losses.

A peace agreement that gives back Ukraine its territory and prevents Russia from invading Ukraine again should obviously be struck as soon as possible; however, before that happens, other countries should continue to provide necessary military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine to ensure that the Ukrainian people can carry out their wishes of defending Ukraine against the Russian military.