comment: >
  
  I’m convinced that a considerable amount of the population physically do not have the capacity to understand hypotheticals.
  Example
  Question: What if your mom got covid?
  Response: But she hasn’t.
  Question: Yes but what if she had?
  Response: She hasn’t got covid.
context: Russia has lost so much, to gain nothing but global hatred. >
  
  All over a war torn country which Russia lacks the resources or economy to rebuild. Ok, so if they do get the territories or country? It would end up looking like how they left Grozny. >
  
  I think they have the resources. Economy will be tricky of course though >
  
  That's assuming Russia will have a decisive victory and acquiescence from the Ukrainians during occupation.  Russia has been shockingly ineffective at a quick takeover of Ukraine.  Ukrainians have responded in a decidedly non-docile way so far, and have regained so much ground, there's no reason to believe they will accept less than removal or liquidation of the Russian occupation forces. >
  
  This war rages on because Russia can’t walk away with zero gain, despite them being entitled to jack shit.
  They want the war over, but not at the asking price of leaving empty handed. Pathetic >
  
  We want to start negotiations!*
  *As long as the STARTING point is us getting everything we want. >
  
  you always start a negotiation by asking for more knowing you'll get less. you don't start with your final offer. >
  
  But in this case they are refusing start the negotiation. This isn't a start of discussions, this is a price to start discussions. >
  
  Ok this really annoys me.
  You CAN NOT negotiate with Russia.
  They will break an agreement at any time when it suits them.
  Would you believe someone's word when they constantly lie and break promises? >
  
  Right they broke the agreement after they took Crimea. Putin just wants everything his way and there is no discussion about that. >
  
  Serious question, do Russians owe anything for breaking the Crimea treaty and the treaty from 90’s?    Did they pay? >
  
  Good question and one to which I do not know the answer. Just a guess: nothing happened and no payments were made. I think that is one of the reasons that Putin invaded Ukraine again. >
  
  It sounds like putin will have a credibility issue with anything he promises.   It should put him at a disadvantage in my opinion >
  
  I agree. >
  
  If Russia walks away from this with even one square meter of land then Europe will have failed and will pay the price in the future. We have a chance to make a global example of Russia here - despots and invaders will be utterly destroyed and will get nothing. >
  
  If Russia walks away from this with even one square meter of land, they will be back next year. >
  
  shit i'll donate a square meter of my backyard if it means russia fucking off back to their hidey hole. i'l even ship it over there >
  
  That's a good way to have russia all up in your house and shit; in a couple years they'll want to annex your kitchen. >
  
  I’m willing to give the kitchen but no one touches the book shelf >
  
  They'll agree to leave the books alone, but they will break that promise as soon as they think you're not paying attention closely enough. >
  
  Ukraine is right.
  Any gain made by Russia would encourage them to do it again.  They should be punished for their aggression, not appeased. >
  
  Yeah, let's have them return Karelia to Finland, maybe even Petsamo... >
  
  Why stop there? South Kurils, Tuzla Island, South Ossetia, as well as forcing them to end their recognition and military occupation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. >
  
  I didn't say stop, just gave a few suggestions. . >
  
  I think we saw this before in Europe. Didn't one country invade another then a third party stepped in and negotiated/accepted/legitimized the invasion on the flimsy promise they wouldn't invade anywhere else? Maybe I'm remembering history wrong but he said something about "securing peace" or whatever. >
  
  Sorry, conquerors who fail at the conquering part do not get spoils. >
  
  To be honest they did conquer territory. It’s just that they might lose all of their conquests made in this and previous war and that’s why they want to negotiate while they’re ahead. >
  
  I am once again asking you to fuck off outta our land. >
  
  Ukraine shouldn’t give Russia any land. The Russians will only establish themselves there, regroup and continue to annex more in the future. It would portrayed as major step toward victory by Putin. >
  
  Russia is going to end up losing Russian territory to Ukraine/NATO in the form of a DMZ on the Russian side of their border, if anything.
  They can’t be trusted not to invade their neighbors.  It’s rich of them to think they’re in any position to negotiate. >
  
  Not only should they be forced to create a DMZ, but they should also be forced to withdraw their soldiers from ALL foreign soil, meaning Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia can finally be reclaimed by their rightful owners. >
  
  Those foreign bases are fucked regardless.  They’ll see less and less critical supplies, attention and manpower as Russia focuses primarily on Ukraine and eventually on internal power struggles.  
  Those bases won’t last long. >
  
  While I agree, it would be in our best interest to also get it in writing (for what that’s worth) >
  
  Russia’s word is meaningless.  It’s why their empire is crumbling. >
  
  Russia's, yes, which is why signatories to such a treaty should include trustworthy guarantors as well. >
  
  What happened the trustworthy guarantors last time ??? >
  
  They didn't have a formal alliance or any circuit breaker troops in Ukraine, an easily remedied error in future. >
  
  A truce should include a hefty DMZ zone, a 30 mile wide buffer on Russian soil. >
  
  I was thinking about this the other day. Presuming Ukraine gets all their land back, NATO accession should come within a few years after which I'd wager it would become the most militarized strip of land on the planet. >
  
  It really depends on how long Russia is prolonging the inevitable defeat, if they insist on grinding down their military resources, the DMZ will be a no mans land with advanced technology on the Ukrainian side and not much on the Russian side >
  
  Russia: but we stole it fair and square >
  
  That deal was not an effort to end war but rather an effort to keep stolen goods. >
  
  As they should.  Russia (or, for that matter, any country) has no right to seize a foreign country's territory. >
  
  They tried diplomacy already with russia. Russia attacked them twice after demanding they disarm.
  If russia wants peace it can give the territory they took back >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 54%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  A senior Ukrainian official on Thursday reiterated Kyiv's rejection of any peace deal with Moscow that would allow Russia to keep Ukrainian territory seized by Russian forces.
  Russian President Vladimir Putin told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan earlier on Thursday that Moscow was open to dialogue over Ukraine but that Kyiv would have to accept the loss of territories claimed by Russia, the Kremlin said.
  "The Russian Federation under the word 'talks'offers Ukraine & the world to recognize 'its right to seize foreign territories' & 'to fix the absence of legal consequences for mass killings on foreign territory.' It's fully unacceptable."
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Russian^#2 territory^#3 Ukrainian^#4 Kyiv^#5 >
  
  
  Kyiv would have to accept the loss
  
  HAHAHAHAHA >
  
  Please Ukraine, never yield, please, for the future of our planet and democracy ! Putin must be defeated in order to evolve as humans! >
  
  It's so sad that there's apparently so much Russian influence in conservative media.  Several of the conservatives at my job keep saying that there's been too much violence and Ukraine just needs to accept what Russia wants to that peace can be declared.  I keep asking them if all of Central and South America suddenly invaded and took chucks of Texas and Arizona, would they then just let them have it?  I get a lot of hemming and hawing at that point mixed with a lot of "Well, our military would never let that happen."  I've been standing firm with that example, though.  Would they be cool just letting the invaders keep half of Texas and Arizona?  When pressed, none of them think that should happen, but Ukraine is different because reasons!
  It's so obvious that their brand of media is pushing this narrative really hard. >
  
  
  "Well, our military would never let that happen." I've been standing firm with that example, though. Would they be cool just letting the invaders keep half of Texas and Arizona? When pressed
  
  Keep doing this.
  Hypothetical thinking is an important part of critical thought, yet conservatives refuse to engage in it. Never let an argument devolve into whether a hypothetical could ever happen. Just acknowledge it's a hypothetical, and press on.