this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
1898 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
7607 readers
2087 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Oh you spoke in Latin, hence you must be right!
I want peace, which is why I will push for negotiations and peace agreements between Russia and Europe (and probably the US seeing their tendencies)
And what are you going to push for when Russia breaks those agreements?
Judging by his statement, @[email protected] would want more "peace" negotiations.
Yes, I would want more honest peace negotiations. What's wrong with peace negotiations?
You cannot make peace with someone that wants to annex you, control you or genocide you. Do you say the same to beaten wives so they don't divorce their husband?
Come on now. Let's not pretend there aren't limits to negotiation with a violent person that refuses to stop being violent. No matter how many times you tell them, "No no, bad, baaaad! Killing baad! Genocide baaad!" To reform them, if they keep doing it: They have no respect for you and respect, last I checked, is a mutual two way street.
In such cases, the bully (murderer in this case) needs to be checked in the guts hard enough to submit, because that bully doesn't want to change and since we can't imprison the damn psychopath and he refuses to stop, teaching him a lesson will have to happen sooner or later.
False dichotomy. The options aren't "peace" or "WORLD WAR THREE".
There's a third option, where Russia decides on "War" against the EU, and the EU says "Annex me harder, Daddy".
That third option is the worst of the three. It's also the option you are advocating.
After the aggressor has invaded your country twice?
Appeasement never has and never will keep bullies from attacking you.
Presupposing that the "evil country" will break agreements isn't good praxis in diplomacy. There would never be deescalation and diplomacy otherwise.
Russia is currently breaking the agreements made after they annexed Crimea.
I'll also leave this paragraph here for no particular reason
Peace is a cooperative effort. Warfare can be conducted unilaterally. Unless you can stop him on his terms, what you want is completely irrelevant to the negotiations.
The meaning behind that Latin aphorism predates civilization. It is the reason so many herbivorous animals evolved horns or antlers.
Your entire argument is "diplomacy doesn't exist". It's not particularly solid
You don't get to talk to Putin's ambassador until you have a plan to deal with his general.
The only way to avoid war is by being able to make it too costly for Russia to conduct it. That is the only thing that will keep them at the table.
Being ready and able to fight is the only way to ensure you won't have to.
This "negotiate from a position of weakness" argument you are raising is the stupidest thing I've read in the past 24 hours.