I am considering the absolute impact on those affected, which is the most relevant for this discussion. Millions are not "a few". And it's absolutely unnecessary, the aggressor has always been in the position to pull back and leave (or not attack at all). Everyone but _a few_ war profiteers suffers from war, because it requires hours of work (weapons) diverted towards destroying other hours of work (cars, houses, infrastructure), occupying workers' time by ordering them to kill future workers, all of which could go towards increasing production instead of decreasing it, which does affect global markets and thus people globally.

▲

nullorempty 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Both sides had the option to de-escalate. All Ukraine needed to do is to implement Minks agreements instead of killing ppl of donbass.

▲

gljiva 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference

	▲	nullorempty an hour ago \| parent [-]
		2014 coup ousted democratically elected president. Some people disagreed. Minsk agreement was supposed to solve it peacefully. Alas, the intention of the agreement was to build-up ukraine's army for war with russia. War was in the cards already really. Still is - all out europe vs russia war.