this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
145 points (94.5% liked)

World News

32351 readers
328 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv would like to end the war with Russia next year through "diplomatic means" as both countries prepare for President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House.

In an interview with the Ukrainian media outlet Suspilne, Zelenskyy said he is certain that the war will end "sooner" than it otherwise would have once Mr. Trump becomes president.

The prospect of Trump returning to power in the United States next year has raised questions about the future of the conflict, as the Republican has been critical of U.S. military aid to Kyiv.

Zelenskyy said that Ukraine "must do everything so that this war ends next year, ends through diplomatic means."

Archive link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

And those protests were like the American protests didn't get anything done. It wasn't until 7 years later when they simply asked nicely. If anything, you're proving violence doesn't work and the best option is to literally simply ask nicely.

Thus, my point about the violent protest being unrelated. It did NOT cause the regime change. I'm not talking about what it's about, I'm talking about what actually switches the government.

I never said nations don't have problem. My list of violent massacres in USA proves that. I'm saying violent protests does not lead to regime change as often as a peaceful transition. Your Korean argument proves that as the violent protest did nothing, vs the peaceful one.

*Edit: To be clear, if we study history we find peaceful regime change far more likely than violent ones. BUT people like YOU keep creating violent situations that do not help the situation. If people like YOU stop being violent, maybe we could work towards actually beneficial transitions.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They had already asked peacefully, and were slaughtered for doing so. The change was a cumulative effort with deep contextual history, and didn't happen in a vacuum.

You have *no idea" what you're talking about.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The Koreans were not slaughtered in 1987 and they transitioned peacefully. You don't know what you are talking about you violent war monger.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Like I said, you have no concept of time, everything is a static event for you, devoid of context. 1987 wasn't the first time South Koreans fought against a dictatorship, and had been slaughtered for peaceful protests. Just because eventually the government conceded doesn't mean it wasn't paid for in civilian blood.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and insult the Korean people who gave their lives, and insult the families of those who died.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, again you've shown their constant and repeating violent protests were not successful. Instead they had to have a peaceful one for change. As long as people like you don't understand that. There will be bodies that keep piling up. Unless you can explain why "democracies" also have violent protests that end with bodies in bags. The violence is pointless, and people like you perpetuate it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Gwang-Ju was peaceful, and the government slaughtered them. You keep pretending violence was the first choice, when peace was. Like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about, and spit on the graves of schoolchildren murdered by Chun Doo-Hwan.

1987 only happened because the years preceding 1987 happened, and you insult the Korean people by lying about their history.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Always so peaceful preparing molotov cocktails and throwing rocks at soldier's heads.

It was terribly one-sided. Some bold spirits threw stones. Others had bottles full of petrol– Molotov cocktails–prepared. But the soldiers reacted quickly. They chased after anyone young, beat them with their rifle butts and kicked them with their heavy armed boots.

https://www.koreasociety.org/images/pdf/KoreanStudies/Curriculum_Materials/LessonsbyTopic/History/The_Gwangju_Uprising.pdf

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, after it was peaceful, it escalated. Peace was the first option, and then the dictator started murdering people. Pretending "just asking" gets dramatic change is horrible, especially when your own referenced article said it was "terribly one-sided."

There's no use talking to someone who supports slaughter of schoolchildren like you.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago

Lol, yes yes it's always so peaceful when you prepare weapons and arms. Molotovs as simple as they are are still something you have to prep. If you're prepping bombs, you're not going there peacefully. You are the one promoting school children deaths by telling them to attack people with weapons.