What gives any arbitrary country a mandate to exist though? We recognize that plenty of other social institutions are transient. Nobody demanded a massive international intervention to continue the existence of the Whig Party or the Studebaker Corporation. Why are countries unique and special? Also, this seems like a very modern thing: nobody is demanding we bring back Tanganyika or unwind German unification.
I get the desire to preserve the Ukranian culture and community. But you don’t need a sovereign nation for that: compare the re-establishment of the Welsh language and culture, for example.
Would the population have been better off-- at least in the “not exploded” sense-- by backing down with a quick surrender in exchange for some “we’ll formally tolerate your cultural differences” legal concessions? I’m sure at this point, it’s impractical to negotiate to that, because there’s too much bloodshed and burnt bridges on both sides, but it seemed like it was never even on the table: the Western world decided an independent Ukraine had to exist even if everyone involved knew it was going to be a very painful and expensive endeavour to keep it.
… Ukraine decided an independent Ukraine had to exist. They voted for independence in 1991, with over 90% in favor. Ukrainian relations with Russia soured after Russia decided to invade and annex part of Ukraine that they had formerly promised to respect the sovereignity of. Russia is an oligarchy with no controls on the behavior of its leader, who has openly signaled that he believes that Ukrainians are just a kind of inferior Russian who need to be taught their place. The West offered the Ukrainian president refuge. The Ukrainian president refused and chose to stay in his country. Hundreds of men and women sacrificed themselves in the opening days of the invasion to buy their country time to resist. Millions have volunteered.
What deal, exactly, do you expect to be made in that situation? In what way was any of that the West’s decision?
Take a step back, and rethink your approach to this. Ukrainians are capable of making their own decisions.
The West chose to make the “fight for your survival” play look more viable. If other countries send enough tanks/planes/missiles, perhaps Russia can be pushed back in a matter of a few months without huge loss of territory.
Conversely, if Ukraine was left to their own military and financial resources-- no sanctions to hamstring Russia, no sweetheart deals on equipment-- they could spend a few weeks burning through what they had, and then perhaps degrading to a years-long insurgency situation akin to Afghanistan. The best story you can sell is “We’re going to have years of violence and misery, and if we’re really lucky, our occupiers will decide we’re too much hassle and expense and leave on their own accord.” With that alternative, maybe a brokered deal would look more compelling.
… so your argument is that, hopefully, and this is an insane hope, that if Ukraine was unable to resist militarily at the outset of the invasion, that they MIGHT decide a protracted war was more trouble than survival was worth, and submit to a negotiated genocide?
I don’t know why point is he even making. He’s looking like a total evil jackass and has only proven that either he loves to troll, is actually trying to make tankies look like homicidal maniacs (they don’t need any help) or is actually evil lol!
What gives any arbitrary country a mandate to exist though? We recognize that plenty of other social institutions are transient. Nobody demanded a massive international intervention to continue the existence of the Whig Party or the Studebaker Corporation. Why are countries unique and special? Also, this seems like a very modern thing: nobody is demanding we bring back Tanganyika or unwind German unification.
I get the desire to preserve the Ukranian culture and community. But you don’t need a sovereign nation for that: compare the re-establishment of the Welsh language and culture, for example.
Would the population have been better off-- at least in the “not exploded” sense-- by backing down with a quick surrender in exchange for some “we’ll formally tolerate your cultural differences” legal concessions? I’m sure at this point, it’s impractical to negotiate to that, because there’s too much bloodshed and burnt bridges on both sides, but it seemed like it was never even on the table: the Western world decided an independent Ukraine had to exist even if everyone involved knew it was going to be a very painful and expensive endeavour to keep it.
… Ukraine decided an independent Ukraine had to exist. They voted for independence in 1991, with over 90% in favor. Ukrainian relations with Russia soured after Russia decided to invade and annex part of Ukraine that they had formerly promised to respect the sovereignity of. Russia is an oligarchy with no controls on the behavior of its leader, who has openly signaled that he believes that Ukrainians are just a kind of inferior Russian who need to be taught their place. The West offered the Ukrainian president refuge. The Ukrainian president refused and chose to stay in his country. Hundreds of men and women sacrificed themselves in the opening days of the invasion to buy their country time to resist. Millions have volunteered.
What deal, exactly, do you expect to be made in that situation? In what way was any of that the West’s decision?
Take a step back, and rethink your approach to this. Ukrainians are capable of making their own decisions.
The West chose to make the “fight for your survival” play look more viable. If other countries send enough tanks/planes/missiles, perhaps Russia can be pushed back in a matter of a few months without huge loss of territory.
Conversely, if Ukraine was left to their own military and financial resources-- no sanctions to hamstring Russia, no sweetheart deals on equipment-- they could spend a few weeks burning through what they had, and then perhaps degrading to a years-long insurgency situation akin to Afghanistan. The best story you can sell is “We’re going to have years of violence and misery, and if we’re really lucky, our occupiers will decide we’re too much hassle and expense and leave on their own accord.” With that alternative, maybe a brokered deal would look more compelling.
… so your argument is that, hopefully, and this is an insane hope, that if Ukraine was unable to resist militarily at the outset of the invasion, that they MIGHT decide a protracted war was more trouble than survival was worth, and submit to a negotiated genocide?
Go fuck yourself.
I don’t know why point is he even making. He’s looking like a total evil jackass and has only proven that either he loves to troll, is actually trying to make tankies look like homicidal maniacs (they don’t need any help) or is actually evil lol!
Do you want to go back to constant wars?
Recognizing countries has been a great way to stop invasions. The borders we drew might not have been perfect, but the peace generated is worthwhile