[gljiva]

Actually, a lot would change. Each one of the Ukrainian lives destroyed is a whole life destroyed. A damaged car is a setback for a family. There are whole cities and villages razed in Ukraine, fields polluted or rigged with explosives. Countless lives lost; each person's story and potential ended by some Russian's "command-following" drone or missile strike.

No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.

[nullorempty]

A lot would change for a few, not for the 8b people on this planet.

[gljiva]

I am considering the absolute impact on those affected, which is the most relevant for this discussion. Millions are not "a few". And it's absolutely unnecessary, the aggressor has always been in the position to pull back and leave (or not attack at all). Everyone but _a few_ war profiteers suffers from war, because it requires hours of work (weapons) diverted towards destroying other hours of work (cars, houses, infrastructure), occupying workers' time by ordering them to kill future workers, all of which could go towards increasing production instead of decreasing it, which does affect global markets and thus people globally.

[nullorempty]

Both sides had the option to de-escalate. All Ukraine needed to do is to implement Minks agreements instead of killing ppl of donbass.

[tim333]

The Donbass thing was down to a lot of false flag stuff from Russia who'd been plotting to take back Ukraine for ages. A lot done by Grikin who fully admitted it https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strel...

[gljiva]

Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference

[nullorempty]

2014 coup ousted democratically elected president. Some people disagreed.

Minsk agreement was supposed to solve it peacefully. Alas, the intention of the agreement was to build-up ukraine's army for war with russia.

War was in the cards already really. Still is - all out europe vs russia war.

[tim333]

Yanukovych was removed by

>Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych on Feb. 22; sets May 25 for new election

funny sort of coup.

[gljiva]

> 2014 coup ousted democratically elected president

..whose forces killed unarmed protestors, and who abandoned the country (after the forces under his chain of command killed protestors, so he can mostly thank himself and his goons for "fearing for his life", don't try that "argument" on me). After years of straying Ukraine away from democracy, after democratically elected parliament decided "enough is enough" and even broke ranks to oust him, you dare to speak about democracy?

Some people "disagreed"? They took up arms. Terrorists. I would say the same about the Euromaidan protestors who killed the police, had the police not killed first. Again pro-russians are the ones to escalate violence.

I already said what Minsk "agreement" is. A capitulation to Russia, not a just solution. Of course Ukraine would arm itself to reclaim its borders from the aggressor. You also missed a keyword here: _defensive_ war against Russia.