this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
440 points (98.5% liked)
Greentext
7954 readers
775 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
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
Oh no. I'm entirely in favor of stopping the war. But stopping it in any way that permits Russia to keep the occupied territory is literally condoning and enabling genocide. Ukraine is fighting to stop that.
"Stopping the war" is possible in many ways, but only one of them doesn't include at least some genocide.
I don't believe Russia is committing genocide in the areas they're occupying. They've certainly committed warcrimes, such as executing POWs and targeting infrastructure in Ukraine, but I've seen no evidence of genocide directed against the civilian population in occupied areas.
We can also look at demographic data in Sevastopol for example. If there was a genocide, we would expect the average life expectancy and age to decrease.
Kidnapping and relocating children to raise them Russian is genocide. Forcibly relocating Ukrainians to replace them with Russians is a genocide. You can choose not to believe that, but it is happening.
Removing civilians from a warzone is good actually. If they're actually preventing them from returning while Russians are allowed to return, that would be genocide, but given that they're being issued Russian citizenship, which allows them to come and go freely, it doesn't seem like Russia is doing that.
It remains to be seen if they're going to copy Israel's playbook and deny Ukrainians who fled before the invasion the right to return, which would be a form of ethnic cleansing.
The previous point still stands though. If Russia is rewarded for being the agressor then they will learn that its the correct path to take. Which is less than ideal
It seems like you ignore points you agree with. This will result in a consensus never being reached, instead having an infinite argument. By adding a "you're right about x but I still disagree with y" into your messaging it'll help create an understanding
Both Russia and Ukraine lost a generation of young people and Russia was basically kicked out of having any economic relations with Europe. That's hardly a reward. Nobody outside of the most bloodthirsty US politicians are going to look back at this and say "Yeah that was a great idea", considering the lines are basically where they were 3 years ago, yet hundreds of thousands more are dead and millions displaced and if there was peace tomorrow, the region is never going to be safe again within our lifetimes, on either side of the border.
I'll keep this in mind.
Russia got it's shit kicked in the Chechnya the first time, and then decided to do the exact same thing again, but worse, a few years later.
I actually don't know enough about the state of the war or the interests of the ruling class of Russia to argue my point any further.
Your arguments on the repercussions have made me agree with your points about it not being rewarding for Russia at the current state of events. Nevertheless I wish to bring up the point that the interests of the ruling class may not be aligned with the interests of Russia as a whole.
But as I said at the start I know too little about that topic to reach any form of conclusion about that, so I'll leave it at a hypothetical possibility.
Cheers!