• Roody15@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes because they cannot win on the battlefield and have lost an enormous amount of lives. Just because Russia is an adversary to the US does not mean we should send 100,000’s of young people to grave. (Meanwhile safe over in the states we wave Ukrainian flags and call them heroes as we leave them dead or mangled)

    So yes reaching a compromise even if Russia was the aggressor is in the best interest of the people left in Ukraine.

    Would you rather use our weaponry and intelligence and money to prolong this war for 10 years … just to have the same outcome but 20x the number of casualties?

      • Roody15@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry for the assumption but my comment still stands in terms of what is a realistic beneficial outcome for Ukraine at this point? Clearly China, India (probably others) are helping Russia keep its ammo stocks and munitions filled.

        Other than a negotiated settlement we can have either world war 3 with NATO intervening … or we can just drag this out for 5-10 years at an enormous cost and literally 100,000’s of dead Ukrainians.

          • TommySalami@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            They don’t, they just get ready to clutch their pearls and say “well, I never…” when it happens again. These people are from the same stock that let Hitler rise to power, and thought appeasement was the best way to deal with aggressive authoritarians. Anything short of full liberation of Ukraine’s territory only encourages Russian belligerence.

            You want to save lives? You make it clear to Russia this kind of shit will only leave them bloodied and empty handed.