[EasyMark]

So like usual I offer up "what's your alternative" ? Is it to ignore Russian's invasion of countries? Ignore Iran's chaos it wants to sew constantly in the Middle East? It's easy to say "just be peaceful" but history shows that countries are not peaceful towards one another, they constantly want to take other's resources, or force their way of life on others, or settle some vague issue they have with another country (or people there). I think most people would love if countries would just stop attacking others. right now we don't have the tech to live on "other bodies", that is pie in the sky. I would love if nation-states just stopped the nonsense and were good to one another and their inhabitants, but that has never been the case.

[quotz]

Irans wants to sew chaos? The whole conflict with Iran started because the US and UK installed a puppet government (Pahlavi) so they can control the oil. After Pahlavi was ousted, the religious extreme took control, and cut ties with the west as a result. Its more like the west wanted chaos and started this whole mess

[cynicalpeace]

It's this same mentality that got us in trouble in literally all conflicts of the past 40 years. One day it's gonna get us blown up and I hope it's not over the Donbas.

[exoverito]

The CIA was actively involved in the Maidan revolution, which sought to pull Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the EU / NATO. Obviously this is antagonistic towards Russia, especially when they have so few natural barriers to defend against invasion of their land. Look at how quickly the Wagner group reached Moscow after defecting from the Ukrainian front.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and China had supported a revolution in Mexico and was setting up military bases, the American government would not take it lightly. The US would cook up some reason to wage war against Mexico as a continuation of the Monroe Doctrine. These wars are not about good and evil, as much as it's about empires and power.

[cynicalpeace]

You realize achieving a compromise is not simply "ignoring" or surrendering to Russia?

Putin and Biden haven't spoken in years. I would say you're proposing ignoring the situation until it becomes even more of a powder keg in a decade or two.

Alternative is accepting some territorial losses, compromising, soldiers go home. Doomsday clock ticks back to 5 minutes to midnight.

You're acting as if this is the first time anyone has annexed territory. Do I like it? No. But you gotta manage with the cards you're dealt and that territory is not worth decades long conflict with two major nuclear powers.

[aguaviva]

You realize achieving a compromise is not simply "ignoring" or surrendering to Russia?

Depends on the degree of compromise.

What kind of compromises do you think Ukraine should make at this point in order to win "peace" with Russia?

Specifics needed please, especially in regard to: (1) the proportion of currently occupied territory Ukraine would need to grant permanent recognized sovereignty to Russia on; (2) the proportion of the the estimated 1T in material damage caused to Ukraine that Russia would need to pay before sanctions are lifted; and (3) the matter of some 20k abducted citizens, mostly minors that Ukraine asserts (with a high degree of credibility) are currently behind held by Russia?

Because it's the specifics that matter.

(BTW, future NATO status is mostly symbolic at this point; items (1)-(3) are what really matter).

[anigbrowl]

Alternative is accepting some territorial losses, compromising, soldiers go home.

This is just machtpolitik.