The case against Zelensky.

[Bereta_Eder]

I'm not saying that Ukranians aren't heros because they are. Not saying that russia is not a murderous dictatorship because it is.


What I am discussing here is the RESPONSIBILITY of a leader vis a vis his people.

You should never, ever become a pawn into no f anyone's hands.


I support that people have the right to choose their fate 100% whatever that might be.

I support anyone's right for freedom democracy human rights pink cars the whole deal.


What I am questioning is wether ukraine's leader could have done something differently

becaus let's face it, everyone is in favor of Ukraine, me first of all, but if presented with a dilema of tens of thousands of my people dying for a proxy war between Russia and the US and maybe finding an alternative route, I might have gone finland.

If Zelensky is now accepting neutrality (which changes nothing) why wouldn't he have accepted it back then and maybe avert the reason for the russian attack?

We will never now, how much a pawn he is.

In any case ukranian resistance is phenomenal, ukraine needs all the support it can get. And it is destroyed.

[Ming]

Gee... I"m sure you would be thrilled if some other country told you that you were no longer your own country... That you weren't allowed to resist them because THEY say you have to be neutral and give them half your country...
Would you just have rolled over and taken it?

And frankly, if you believe this whole war is simply about Russia's desire to have Ukraine neutral, and NOT about rebuilding the old Soviet Empire... I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

[Bereta_Eder]

Maybe you're right.

We're discussing here and I don't claim I am the pope

I put forth a proposition that I think is valid.

[Uncle Sparky]

Skopje should be capital of all Macedonia...

Agree?

[Bereta_Eder]

Canada must be very depressing

[Bereta_Eder]

I would like to remind our frozen depressed polar bears that finland actually ceded a large part of its land to the soviet union. She won but stalin could have easily retaken everything with his 20 million army.

What finland chose to do was neutrality. It is prosperous apparently very happy (but people off themselves like cattle, go figure) it is democratic with a high wuality of life and free. It just doesn't have an external policy.

Now take finaldn and put it side by side with ukraine

[Ming]

So you think it's OK for any large country to Black Mail a smaller and weaker country to give up part of their country to avoid an invasion, simply because the bully wants it?

[Bereta_Eder]

If you ever heard of a country named Cyprus, you would know that I don't think it is right.

And it is not right in a just ideal world.


However pragmatically I am questioning wether Zelensky had less of a know how than finland in securing the best possible (I repeat possible and realistic under the circumstances) future for his people.


Also anyone crying for Ukraine now, hey they asked to join NATO. You said no.

[PLATO]

I don't think that Ukraine, if it was to truly remain an independent entity, could have given up any control it had to make sovereign decisions before the war. Even if they did, I don't believe that declaring neutrality would have made any difference. Ukraine's only hope to avoid this conflict would have been if they had been a NATO member. Even then, I am not sure that Putin wasn't bat**** crazy enough to have invaded anyway. To simplify it in the extreme...why would Ukraine give up a bargaining chip before a war? If their defense is effective enough, then neutrality might be part of Putin's off ramp. An option that would not have existed if declared before the war.

You say you "might have gone Finland". This argument forgets the fact that their WAS a war with Russia for Finland AND Finland DID cede territory to Russia AND declare neutrality as part of the peace deal. Russia would be happy at this point if Ukraine would "go Finland" I think.

Who knows though what goes on in Putin's head? Maybe nothing would stop him from his goals...regardless of if they are rebuilding the Soviet Empire or that plus destabilizing the NATO alliance and creating his "new world order."

In either case, I think he is failing and a "Finlandization" of Ukraine is now his best hope...still a Russian victory I think, if it happens, but far less than it could have been if the West had rsponded differently.

So...as far as Zelensky is concerned, I think he made the only choice he could.

[Bereta_Eder]

In any case what is sad is of course the destruction of Ukraine (however, still I think that country has won because it has the whole world on its side, and that's not a small feat) and the fact that russia has been reduced to a veritable dictatorship.


It's really sad because many countries have tethered on the brink of going democratic or not and many have succeeded but the great country of russia has not. That is very sad indeed.

I was watching a russian film that has won a greek award about the largest independent tv station in russia and how it fell under putin's regime. little by little untill it was surroudned by a veritable dictatorship.

What struck me was how many ambitious capable enterprenerial russians there were, that could waive wonders and how they were literally crushed by an authoritative regime that has now "everyone" concinved they're fighting off nazis. Really sad.

[pchang]

Umm. Finland got invaded by Russia too. There was no preventing Russia’s attack short of full surrender (which would have resulted in Zelensky being deposed and then a Russian invasion anyway). Zelensky’s failing was telling his people Russia would not attack back in early February when western intelligence agencies were telling him Russia was getting ready to attack.

[Bereta_Eder]

What change would have that made?

What would maybe have made a difference was saying that Ukraine would remain neutral. Don.e What excuse would Russia have had to attack then?

I'm sure it could find some but what I'm saying is that maybe zelensky could have chosen a different route that would have averted the attack.

Not believing it would happen is not a failing on his part

[Bereta_Eder]

Finland got invaded and it pushed back the USSR and USSR got a huge chunk of Finland's territory. Then stalin had at his desposal (after ww2) a 20 million strong army that would have swalloed finland whole.

There was an arrangment and Staling acknowledged that he should have to sacrifice plenty of soviet lives to take finland (but he could, 100%) and finland realized that trading a large part of its territory and its neutrality for being left alone was a good deal.

[Bereta_Eder]

And they say balkans is a powderkeg. The balkans are a korean k-pop band in comparison

[pchang]

Believing that Russia would attack would have made no difference to the attack itself. But, it might have led to more civilians evacuating their towns earlier.

[Bereta_Eder]

Wouldn't have helped even if it was ordered which it would never be even if he was sure the russians would attack.


an attack by a foreign country is not a natural disaster you run away from