“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.
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.
First of all, if you didn’t mean to imply it that’s one thing, but it is clear to me that “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.” implies that whether or not you should fight an invading force “depends” on the threat of genocide. The word depends in this context means that the outcome will be different if there is or is not genocide. So let’s not say that you DIDN’T imply it because you did. Misspeaking is fine, misrepresenting what you said after the fact is disingenuous and reduces your credibility in my eyes which makes it harder for me to engage in a meaningful way with you.
Now that we’ve established that you believe that fighting back against a hostile invading force is a reasonable course of action you have moved the goal posts back to claim that while fighting back (which Ukraine is doing) is fine, the fact that you view them as dependent on foreign countries to support their ability to fight means that they shouldn’t fight back? Clearly it isn’t a gamble since Ukraine has been successfully defending for nearly a year and a half. Of course they are also losing lives in the war, but not only are they losing lives at a FAR lower rate than Russia, but even in your perfect hypothetical where a country is invaded by a hostile force and can successfully defend without receiving any aid from any outside sources, they will still lose lives in that successful defense.