- Edited
Gurgen Did I ever say I am against peace negotiations?
Okay, sure. I'll take this at face value.
Yes, you did.
You've worked hard to rationalise the prolongation of this war. You've done it for years.
Yesterday you endorsed two neocons who claimed dubiously in the Atlantic "if only the United States would support the war effort, because it's being won".
Within the past week you called opposition to ongoing war "appeasement" and speculated about NATO military action against Putin analogous to the Allied campaign to remove Hitler.
You've described peace negotiations involving territorial concessions along the lines of Minsk 2 (paraphrasing) as folly that "rewards Putin with land" in your past few posts.
You use similar formulae often. Suggesting a peace on any vaguely realistic basis is the symptom of a recidivist, online poser, an ignoramus, an extremist, someone dogmatically anti-west, a Russian dupe, or whatever else is handy.
As far as the underpinnings of the conflict go it's very, very simple. Russia is pure historical evil and has "never had allies, only enemies and vassals". Any peace negotiated with Putin will immediately fail due to treachery. And importantly, "the west is better".
Even in your last post, you imply hopes for peace are futile because Putin would never enter into it. Well you might be right about that, and today you might be more right than you would have been a year ago, when you were saying the same things.
But you can't claim you've been open to testing it.
To add to this, for a good extended period you said that any call for an end to the war given its horrifying human costs was no more than a cowardly denial of Ukrainian political will.
That's your record, give or take. Did you ever say you were against peace negotiations?