“He could have done that, but it didn’t happen. Yes, the question probably wasn’t pressing at the time because there was no full-scale invasion.
“But our territories were occupied.”
of course, we all know what Trump did do: he tried to extort Zalenskyy for dirt on Hunter Biden by withholding relief funding that the US Congress had already authorized to send to Ukraine. He was even impeached over it.
Are you asking me if land is more important than lives? The answer is lives everytime.
If you give up your home to a conqueror and go elsewhere, he will soon appear again and take your new home from you as well.
Conquerors must be stopped. It is the only way to deal with them.
I don’t think the people of Donetsk will flee. They’ll probably just pay taxes to Putin rather than Zelensky.
When the Romans conquered Europe, they left the locals in power and setup taxes.
These aren’t professional Roman legionaries. From what I’ve heard, Russian troops routinely murder, rape, and steal from civilians.
And Russia is not Rome. Russia is an oppressive dictatorship led by a homicidal madman who craves power and uses his people as cannon fodder without a second thought. If he conquers your town, he’ll force you to fight and die to conquer the next town.
The new boss is not the same as the old boss, and that is why the Ukrainian people are fighting so hard to stop him.
Yikes. I don’t think this is going anywhere. Best wishes
You are twisting my words. I never asked that question in any way. My question was very clear: do you seriously believe that the best course of action when invaded by a hostile country is to flee and give them whatever they want since that would end the conflict as soon as possible? Please do not twist my words again to dodge the question.
We seen to disagree here. believe the best thing a leader can do when invaded is protect the lives of as many people who the leader is responsible for as possible.
And would you not agree that the easiest way to do that is to run away without fighting?
Depends on if the invaders plan to genocide the people or not. The threat of genocide should influence a leader to fight. The cost of genocide outweighs lives lost in conflict.
So if Ukraine invades Russia and threatens to commit genocide then Russia should just flee and give them as much territory as they want right?
Edit: excuse me, I misread your comment. That’s my fault. Let me rephrase. If Ukraine invades Russia without intending to commit genocide then Russia should flee and give them as much land as they want right?
If the lives lost in genocide are more than those lost in a successful defense, yes. I don’t think I understand what you’re getting at.
You said that if the invader intends to commit genocide that that should influence the leader of the country being invaded to fight, right? That implies that if the invader does NOT intend to commit genocide that you shouldn’t fight, you should instead flee, correct? I don’t want to put words in your mouth here so correct me if I’m wrong please. Do you think they should fight in either case or am I understanding you correctly in that they should run if there is no threat of genocide?
It doesn’t imply that. Fight if you can successfully defend or there is genocide. Ukraine’s ability to successfully defend is dependent on foreigners and that’s a risky position to be in. That is, gambling the lives of your people on the goodwill of foreigners.