gataloca ,

I’m not going to engage with your personal attacks and you should feel shameful for saying such nasty things to a stranger you hardly know.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict can be viewed in many different ways. One of them is Russia being an aggressor and waging an illegal war of conquest like Nazi Germany, and that’s a valid way to look at the conflict. I’m sure even he would agree of that. However the conflict is also very dangerous, especially with NATO involvement. The biggest threat is actually if the war would escalate into nuclear annihilation because Putin has threatened that if Russia loses, they’re going to start nuking. Have you forgotten about that?

US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.

That is your opinion. A missile can be used to shoot a helicopter just as easily on the Ukraine side of the border as on the Russian side of the border.

If we assume that Ukraine would manage to sue for some sort of white peace or extended ceasefire, what would that mean with the supplies that has been lent to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and all the debt that Ukraine is racking up? Who do you think will have to pay for all that and what would the consequences be for Ukrainians? Probably not very good things. Possibly privatizations, international loans from WTO or other forms of neocolonialism. The intent of involvement from the west is highly suspicious and deserve its own scrutiny.

And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.

Maybe so, or maybe there might be a regime change in 5 years? Maybe with some time passing Putin somehow dies? Of sickness, old age or some other reason? In 5 years Putin would be over the average life expectancy of Russians. Maybe the Russians don’t try again in 5 years because they got humiliated this time? The world isn’t static and time changes things.

Second thought released its own video surrounding the Ukraine conflict and in a comment he posted he outlined his positions surrounding the conflict. I quote:

  1. This war doesn’t benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They’re suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
  2. Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
  3. Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
  4. This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards “unfriendly” states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn’t do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.

This is similar to the things he said in your video you linked. What has he lied about? Can you name even one contradiction? That doesn’t mean that he wants Ukraine to surrender or give up, rather that’s just your interpretation of his stance which is blatantly wrong and has no evidence. The fact that you try to claim otherwise because he calls for peace is just slander.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines