Allright, I guess we'll just wait until all the able-bodied ukrainians have been killed (despite themselves not wanting to fight) and then the land will be ceded. I'm sure its much better if thousands more die first!

Ceding land to a foreign aggressor is not a viable off-ramp. Get real.

This is nationalist rhetoric. Claiming to be a socialist and yet obsessing over the borders of one bourgeois state over another bourgeois state is one of the reasons you are being called a liberal here. You are a nationalist cheerleading for one group of billionaires to rule over the people instead of another group of billionaires, all while hundreds of thousands of people get killed in the name of that. Meanwhile socialists are out here saying we don't want people dying and do not give a fuck what borders exist as long as people aren't dying, the best solution is the quickest and fastest way to minimise death.

You are defending the state, not people's lives. You are sacrificing people for states and borders. You are a bourgeois nationalist, and you would have advocated for the same thing in every past conflict. You're not even a social chauvinist and they were shitbags, you're just straight up nationalist.

Ok so why don't you teach all us damn talkies a lesson and explain to us how you stop the war then other than libs usual line of Russia just gives up and goes home for no apparent reason.

Because currently either land changes hands at some point or everybody on one side dies and libs keep insisting the first option is a no go.

So please, inform us. We're all very excited to hear what you have to say.

it's an extremely viable off-ramp in fact that's how the majority of wars have ended

as Ukraine have tried military force and it didn't work then an outcome that doesn't relly on the Russians just deciding to give up on the whole idea for no reason might be better alligned with reality

That's what Lenin did and it saved countless lives. The Tsar kept feeding people into a meat grinder and the communists took power of the promise that they'd end the war, and they had to accept heavy concessions but they did it. Which position do you agree with, Lenin's or the Tsar's?

A ton of people in Russia don't care that much about the war. They've had protestors and even people who report their news and propaganda speak out about it. There's no reason they should be there. They can easily leave, it's very much an option. Now the Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland, so they have just as much a motivation to not give up either. But they also have support from the strongest military in the world.

I do hope they come to some sort of negotiation soon, but saying it never would have been this bad if Russia got everything they want from the beginning and the world stayed out is appeasement and we already know how that ends with the Nazis.

It's in the post from the person above that we're all replying to.

https://lemmy.zip/comment/2294680

Possibly the most egregious yet: apparently the Bucha massacre was a hoax. Remember all those videos we saw of Russian soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians? Apparently they all must have been doctored, or were actually Ukrainian soldiers dressed up as Russian soldiers gunning down their own people.

Are you serious? We just went through a ton of examples in the post above that we're all replying to.

And it's not even an exhaustive list. I've seen others parrot the idea that Ukraine was doing a genocide in Donbas, a Russian accusation without proof, for example. This is what I mean about you guys skeptical about every side of the story except for Russia's.

Also, which side do you think the Russians are supporting in the US? Because it's not the left...