You could argue that, if you were both woefully uninformed about who the aggressor is and laughably ignorant about how armed conflict works. You could.

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

I'm just the most decorated veteran in my family with 5 generations of service, but sure teach me how armed conflict works.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ukraine provoked said war for 8 years. Fully believing (or being led to believe) it would win.
it did ethnic cleansing in Donbas during that time and was preparing to finish the job when Russia brought the Hammer down
In a war the losing side has to make concessions to reach peace, not the winning side. Russia is winning that war, ergo Ukraine has to make concessions. In WW2 Japan surrendered unconditionally, it was not the Allies who made any concessions to Japan. When Prussia invaded Denmark, Denmark conceded Holstein to Prussia. Prussia did not concede anything to Denmark, it won that war. Did you per chance believe that Mexico turned over half of its territory to the USA because it was in a good mode or something? The US defeated Mexico in a war, Mexico had to make huge territorial concessions. It is completely irrelevant who was the agressor in this regard. In other words: Why should I concede you something when I am in a position to take more? You have to concede something to prevent me from taking more.

5 generations of not knowing how peace making works. Something any grand strategy video game would've teached you. Or looking up any war in history. Loser makes concessions, how hard is this to get?

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)