• Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.

    The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.

    As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.

      Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.

      Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:

      The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.

      The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.

      Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.

        By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.

              • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                What I’ve read so far about each of those cases is that nato was deployed to either halt a genocide or suppress a terrorist organization. Both of those things are still defensive actions.

                Though I guess they could be interpreted as aggressive by countries that are pro-genocide and pro-terrorism, so it makes perfect sense that a Russia/China instance would be pissing themselves.

                Your fears are based in the aggressive nature of the countries you simp for, so do carry on. Nothing I say is going to convince you one way or the other if you’re already eating the propaganda cereal.