GirlChat #740840

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  


Posted by Butterfly Kisses on Saturday, April 02 2022 at 11:10:27PM
In reply to Thank you for a fair response, and Re: posted by Dissident on Thursday, March 31 2022 at 00:54:59AM

For now, yes. Well over 50% of the populace of any nation always supports its country when it goes to war. That tends to change after millions of people are killed and more than half of the country's infrastructure is destroyed, however. And once the realization sinks in that this horror could have been avoided by diplomatic actions that acceded to what were actually reasonable demands by a head of state, even a vicious nationalist like Putin.

I don't think it could have been reasonably avoided. Giving up Donbass and Luhansk which are majority Ukranian is a no go. Maybe a strip, but considering Russia essentially already controls the majority Russia areas and that wasn't enough I doubt it.

Demilitarization is also a no go. Just making it easier for Putin to take over is idiotic.

I'm guessing the people of Ukraine would be willing to not join NATO as I stated before. But, I am equally convinced that Putin would not be accepting of just a no NATO Ukraine. It's probably where this will all end, but I don't think that was Putin's goal.

I'm doubtful that over 50% of Russia wanted to go to war. I don't even think 50% of their army did. Considering the low moral and troops that are captured thinking they are in Donbass and not driving toward Kyiv. Or troops even sabotaging their own equipment. I mean I'm sure there is a decent number that want to restore the USSR of old, but I just don't see a huge drive from the round about observations I've seen. Since it's not a like a poll on the subject is allowed.

Understandable and reasonable, but militarization of any nation would not be necessary if we, the masses, didn't continue to support the system we now live under. But yes, under the current state of affairs in the world, I do agree it would be unreasonable to expect any nation to completely dimilitarize itself, especially considering Russia and NATO alike would never agree to do so.

I certainly hope one day in the future demilitarization would be possible. I just don't see it under current circumstances. Russia was destroying Chechnya, Syria, Georgia, long before Ukraine. Militaries have a deterrence function too. We have been in a good period of relative peace compared to history.

The thing is, the Ukrainian people were never asked. The heads of state make these decisions, and the opinion to push Zelensky into making this decision was "security advisors" from the USA government, not his people. And Zelensky is in office thanks to the USA, not thanks to his people. Even were that not so, our rulers have no obligation to follow the will of the people who elect these leaders. Note too how, as an example, Biden and his fellow Democrats that currently control Congress have refused to enact a single policy on his campaign platform despite the fact that over 80% of the common people want them in place. It doesn't matter if Biden was elected, because he owes nothing to the people who help elect him once he is granted that seat. The same goes for the Ukraine. Zelensky follows the will of the money, not the will of the Ukrainian people.

I don't think the Ukrainian people needed to be asked if they wanted Russia to take over or not. You make it sound like Zelensky pushed for war and not the other way around. Russia invaded Ukraine. I'm sure we will disagree on whether Zelensky was democratically elected, but I've been over his election twice reading articles talking the subject from varying viewpoints. The general consensus is that the election was free. In fact the reports of paying for votes were from candidates running against Zelensky. Also Zelensky was the candidate wanting more compromise with Putin. His rival during the campaign said a vote for Zelensky is a vote for Putin. If they were rigged against Putin he wouldn't have won.

Where we differ is I think the west has been incredibly accommodating on being lax toward Putin. Letting him bite off pieces of Georgia, Ukraine, destroy Chechnya, the bombing of civilians in Syria. Putin was learning his actions did not have consequences. Unfortunately for him rather than realistic goals like Donbass and Luhansk he decided it would be a good idea to take the whole dang country.

If the west had just not done anything and said ok Putin no more advance of NATO like you ask then I firmly believe Finland would be next. If Nato had not expanded East, then it would have been Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania getting taken over instead of Ukraine. And with their small size and population it would have been far easier.

Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?