Lol how typical, adopts positions of others without thinking critically for himself, like a sheep.

So why did you post the comment in the first place if you can’t back it up lol?

So there are no lies? Or how am I supposed to interpret that?

Because I’m not aware of any western lies being spread by mainstream media, so I would be curious about what lies you’re talking about.

>western lies about the Ukraine war

Can you give some examples?

>You're mixing up what's happening and what you find justifiable.

The issue is that you are the one mixing things up. Your presenting Ukraine and Russia as equally being able to stop the war. But stopping the war for Ukraine would mean losing their sovereignty, while stopping the war for Russia would have no impact on their sovereignty.

>If your plan is to keep telling Putin to end the war - it doesn't seem very productive.

We can keep telling Putin that while we send military aid to Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, if Ukraine keeps being successful then Putin is more likely to listen.

>Escalating that can make things less popular, and make the war seem more necessary from the Russian perspective.

Support for sending troops to Ukraine was around 35-40% at the start of the war. It seems pretty obvious that main reason NATO troops aren't in Ukraine are due to Russia's nuclear weapons (as noted here and here).

Doesn't this also show Putin that NATO doesn't want to attack Russia, since this would be the perfect opportunity to perform such an attack?

>They probably made a calculation that the risk is low enough.

You hit the nail on the head. The risk of conflict escalation is low when sending aid, because NATO is not directly involved. Sending troops to Ukraine would massively escalate the conflict, as pointed out by the Biden admin.

>Again, what would they be, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything? Why would Putin willingly give up his leverage for nothing?

The point is that both parties set up pre-conditions for diplomatic negotiations, which the other party is not willing to meet, hence the military conflict. However, Russia, as the aggressor, is the only party that wants to continue the conflict, and has no justifiable reason to be in the conflict, so it is their responsibility to end the war if they want to negotiate.

Ukraine can't do that if they want to maintain their sovereignty, Russia can do that while maintaining their sovereignty.

>It can quickly become an unpopular quagmire, for example.

How would it be an unpopular quagmire? Support for Ukraine is at an all time high, and vice versa for Russia, especially in Europe. NATO troops in Ukraine would help out a great deal in kicking out Russians out of Ukraine, judging by the pace that Ukrainians were able to retrieve territory.

The reason that NATO troops aren't in Ukraine is that they don't want to potentially trigger MAD, that's it.

>The point was that MAD doesn't give you peace of mind. Or any kind of certainty.

Exactly, that's why NATO doesn't want to attack Russia, because they don't want to risk the chance of triggering MAD.

>Well, this line of thinking is exactly why it's ridiculous for you to pretend that Zelensky's "preconditions" are actually preconditions to anything. And even more ridiculous for him to pretend that.

They are preconditions for diplomatic negotiations to take place. They can discuss a whole bunch of different things once Russian troops leave Ukraine. But Russia's preconditions that annexed territories, which is what this conflict is about, be recognized as Russian is preventing negotiations.

>Who knows? Like, I said, if Russia is suddenly getting attacked by the US from Ukraine, is Russia going to nuke its own border? Or the US - and trigger MAD for itself too?

The answer is obviously yes, an attack from Ukraine would trigger MAD. Why do you think NATO is not sending troops to Ukraine right now?

>So Putin leaves Ukraine - what would they talk about, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything?

What is there even to talk about? Russia doesn't have any right to Ukrainian land, you're making it seem like Russia had a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.

>After the Iraq war, I don't think Putin wanted to take chances.

Take chances from what? The US wasn't going to attack Russia because of MAD.

>They could have done the opposite. Ramp up conventional warfare, then what exactly is Russia going to do? Nuke Crimea, at a great cost to itself? Nuke the US and actually trigger MAD?

Wait, you're talking about conventional warfare after Ukraine joined NATO? That would trigger MAD, no?

>You could say the same about Zelensky's preconditions - give us what we want, then we'll have peace talks.

But Zelensky's preconditions are reasonable, to respect the sovereignty of their country, while Russia's aren't.

>Ukraine did intend to join NATO, specific plans don't take much time to make, and MAD surely never prevented tensions between countries. See: Cuban missile crisis.

Ukraine did want to join NATO, but their membership action plan was declined in 2008 in Bucharest. Joining NATO is a long process and is not guaranteed, look at Sweden and Finland.

Cuban missile crisis is not analogous, since Russia sent nukes to US borders. There were no plans to do this in Ukraine, if NATO wanted to put nukes at Russia's borders, they could do it already in the Baltic countries.

>I don't wish it, that's for sure. I also don't think Putin intended to annex the entire Ukraine. He might have intended a regime change.

He wouldn't have allowed democratic elections to occur, right? Plus, I'm pretty sure he would've annexed parts of Ukraine that are currently being fought over.

>We're not at the start of the war, are we? Right now it's Zelensky that rules out peace talks. Plus it's not like things started at the start of the war. There was a long history of Minsk agreements going nowhere.

Zelensky is ruling out peace talks with Putin because Ukraine tried to have talks with Putin only for them to be ignored. Russia said that Ukraine must acknowledge annexed territory as Russian, so they are not willing to negotiate.

>The US would be able to fill Crimea to the brim with military bases and missiles, and Russia would be unable to do anything up until the very moment of attack.

Ukraine was nowhere near to joining NATO, there were no plans of putting military bases in Crimea, and NATO wasn't going to attack Russia due to MAD.

Without Western support, Ukraine would be taken over by Russia. I trust that you oppose that outcome, yes?

Russia is the one who is not willing to negotiate, Zelensky was desperately trying to contact Putin to talk with him at the start of the war only to be ignored by him.

NATO expansion is not a justification for the war, since NATO does not pose a threat to Russia.

But the only party that can stop the war is Russia, and they are unwilling to negotiate.

So do you oppose the current conflict in Ukraine?

I’m not sure if you answered my previous question, would you continue doing trade with Nazi Germany?

I don't understand what you mean by fallacy. If China would start a war, and you would oppose the war, then it would be hypocritical of you to continue buying products that are produced and/or owned by China if alternatives are available.

If Apple was doing something bad, then buying an iPhone would support them continuing doing the bad thing, right?

Brazil's imports from Russia grew by 89% in the 3 months from the start of the war. So I guess not increasing the imports would be ideal? But I understand importing fertilizer, I don't think that would need to be part of the sanctions.

> just to please some other country's foreign policy? No, thanks.

What foreign policy are you talking about? The 'stop countries from annexing other countries' policy?

I don't mean to stop trading completely, but to reduce trading in the form of sanctions. Would you support sanctioning Russia in this case?

So you are saying that the countries should have continued trading with the US, or Nazi Germany during WW2?

Fine, feel free to bring up any other conflict where a country tried to annex another country.

Yes I would where the US tried to annex other countries. Your turn now.

EDIT: also, not sure how much of an own you think invoking Godwin's law was supposed to be, when analogies to wars naturally arise during discussions about wars lol

I’m asking you if you agree with that stance, that Brazil should’ve kept trading with both Axis and Allies?

Just curious, would you say the same thing if Brazil kept trading with Nazi Germany during WW2?