[pydry]

Ok so youre in the sacrifice and die for nothing camp then.

>Otherwise what do you do when Russia comes back for another bite

The fact that a neutral ukraine isnt enough of a prize to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives capturing.

They did give it independence in the first place after all.

[int_19h]

"Give it independence" is a very misleading way to state it. Ukraine has declared its independence unilaterally; it's just that Russia wasn't really in a position to do anything about it then.

[amanaplanacanal]

They've already invaded twice. You are way more trusting than I am.

I mean, I get it. If you are a pacifist, you do you. Repeating Putin's talking points probably isn't going to convince anybody, though.

Obviously, Putin has visions of a greater empire. Perhaps you are just intentionally blind to that.

[pydry]

Yeah, they invaded twice and in each case a little diplomacy would have been sufficient to roll back the invasion. Diplomacy which was categorically refused for terrible reasons.

Hey, if you want to fight and die on behalf of your Western empire then Ukraine will be only too happy to have you and every Ukrainian of fighting age about to be thrown on to the front lines will be only too happy to trade places.

But, I get it - it's easy to treat little things like honest diplomacy and other countries' security concerns with complete disregard when you're not the one being thrown on to the front lines to die as a result of it. Only Ukrainians are forced to do that.

>Repeating Putin's talking points probably isn't going to convince anybody

Putin's a terrible human being and so are his supporters but he's not all that different to his western imperialist counterparts and the supporters of their narratives - people like you.

[mopsi]

> Yeah, they invaded twice and in each case a little diplomacy would have been sufficient to roll back the invasion.

That's just a stalling tactic. The very people who built Russian diplomacy and personally mentored figures like the current foreign minister Lavrov have commented that Russia's offers have never been serious, pointing to details such as the fact that the people leading the negotiations are low-level functionaries without any authority to negotiate anything. You don't send errand boys if you're serious about negotiations.

[pydry]

Diplomacy is always a murky world but in this case there is one and clear stand out example where what you said is true. It was announced that Minsk 2 was purely meant as a stalling tactic to allow re-armament.

Unfortunately for your little theory it was Ukraine and Angela Merkel who admitted this and not Russia.

This was made even more painfully obvious just before that day in Feb 2022 when Russia demanded Ukraine adhere to this multilateral (i.e. also agreed by Europe) agreement theyd already agreed to and Ukraine just point blank refused, preferring to fight.

Russian diplomacy follows a Clausewitzian model (i.e. that you're better off in tbe long run if you are up front about your intentions), unlike the western model where one day you announce talks with the Iranians pledging good faith in your negotiations and the next day you launch a surprise bombing raid, hoping this means you got 'em good.

[mopsi]

These are just stale deflections. Russian diplomacy is indeed stuck in Clausewitzian times: diplomacy is seen as an extension of military strategy and not as a tool for building durable cooperation. This becomes especially apparent when compared to how former great rivals like France and Germany, the UK and Spain, or Sweden and Denmark now conduct their relations with one another.

Sweden and Denmark are some of the best examples of this. Despite centuries of wars, they are now considered inseparable, and their very violent past comes as a surprise to many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_Denmark_a...

When you put Russia against this, it's abundantly clear how hopelessly outdated present-day Russian diplomacy is; it has much more in common with the distant past than with the modern day.

[pydry]

>These are just stale deflections.

These are hard facts which skewer your narrative.

>Russian diplomacy is indeed stuck in Clausewitzian times: diplomacy is seen as an extension of military strategy and not as a tool for building durable cooperation.

Except that is what they are doing with BRICs with the entire rest of the world. It's only the American-led western hegemonic bloc they're clashing with - exclusively puppets and military junior partners of the United States like France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

Outside of this hegemonic military/economic bloc nobody has sanctioned Russia, which is why the effect of the sanctions we levied ended up being so pathetic. At the same time there is a huge appetite for joining the BRICs because the rest of the world is that fucking sick of us.

>When you put Russia against this

"This" is an empire in decline. The west is already following the same path as the USSR in the 1980s (dutch disease, massive industrial decline, fast incoming military overspend), except tailed off with more tacit and explicit support for genocide as a cherry on top. We're the best.