In my language, the word for coal refers to both types, but you can specify “wood coal” or “rock coal” if necessary.

They are arguing in bad faith and they know it. The peace-absolutism is in a long tradition of pro-Soviet propaganda, where the only obstacle to eternal world peace was countries (particularly those opposing the Soviet Union) having any military at all. (Soviet Union was of course allowed to have a strong military to “protect” itself from Western, particularly US, “aggression”).

All of the calls for “peace” and “diplomacy” now are exactly the same: calls to stop actively resisting Russian aggression, and in the longer term to destroy your capability of being able to resist in the first place. And, if possible, to simply roll over to all Russian demands because you aren’t being “diplomatic” otherwise.

War, in this propagandistic view, is only caused by the country being invaded defending itself; after all, if they simply allowed Russia to take over, there would be no war. In the best case, the situation would have been solved through “diplomacy”, i.e. simply agreeing to all Russian demands. That way war would have been avoided, right?

And because no sensible person wants war, the leaders saying “no” to Russian demands (and who therefore must not want diplomacy, right?) must want war either because they’re corrupt and want to profit off of the war, because they’re “russophobic” “nazis” who “unreasonably” hate Russia, or because they’re being used as pawns by someone else, most likely the US. Because no one wants war, and therefore should be willing to conduct diplomacy over any questions (i.e. roll over to Russian demands) if they were not being manipulated in some way. And that is why poor Russia is “forced” to invade countries because of the US and the West, because being US pawns they are not willing to be diplomatic (i.e. agree to all Russian demands).

Anyone in the West supporting the invaded country is therefore a “warmongerer” if they do not support “diplomacy” (= letting Russia have whatever they want). Because there would be no war if Russia could just do whatever they want with no resistance.

No EU leader wants to have any piece of that shithole of a country.

War is insane, so it is unfortunate that Russia has unleashed it again. But fortunately we are working on helping Ukraine stop Russia from killing more people and bringing more destruction to Ukraine.

Edit: I love how pro-Russian shills are downvoting me without being able to give a single real reason why one should blame this war on anyone else but Russia.

If the West wants war so bad, why are Western countries dithering so hard about giving equipment to Ukraine? Shouldn’t that be profitable for them? Shouldn’t the US congress approve the aid to Ukraine in a heartbeat if all they want is to enrich themselves if war is so profitable?

Why is it okay for Russia to profit from war, but not for people trying to stop Russia from expanding their war profiteering? Does every European country need to become a target for Russian war profiteering?

Who was it that attacked Ukraine? Regardless of any past ambitions, even if the west “wants war”, would there be any war in Europe at the present moment if Russia had not invaded Ukraine?

Yes, we know that Russia invaded Ukraine because of a mentally ill game by a dude greedy for wealth and power. And now we unfortunately are put in the position of having to stop his quest for wealth and power lest it consume the whole of Europe. Or do you think that the guy hungry for wealth and power will stop pursuing those things because of diplomacy?

It’s difficult to be diplomatic when the other guy is actively attacking you.

Particularly as Russian diplomacy tends to be, “do what we say and we might not hurt you more for the time being”.

I’m sure Russia will withdraw from Ukraine to prevent such an eventuality from happening.

Sure then, if you want to call it that. But did it work? Were countries not invaded by the US thanks to Swedish appeasement?

What I’m saying is, if China and Russia truly cared about what the US is doing, they could choose to sanction the US and the West just like the West is doing to Russia right now. Like you say, China throwing their weight in would certainly have an influence.

Sure they would, but not as much as Russia doing the same but much closer to Sweden.

Maybe they should stop being such goody-two-shoes then if they want to have an influence in the world.

Wars “breaking out” like it isn’t Russia invading everybody else lmao

Now you lost me, surely Hitler was being appeased by the Allies allowing him to do things they would’ve preferred him not to do?

Ah yes, Russia and China, so well known for following international law to the letter.

It’s not appeasement if the party being “appeased” is not opposed to you to begin with.

Because the US geopolitical goals and actions, while often reprehensible, generally speaking aren’t against Swedish interests, whereas Russia is a much more direct threat to Sweden.

Why does China keep appeasing the US by not sending weapons to support Russia?

Can you explain why Russia and China haven’t sanctioned the US if they are so opposed to what the US is doing?

Also funny how this “appeasement never works” fanaticism never applies to NATO and it’s members

Yeah, funny how Russia, China and friends haven’t sanctioned the US and other countries. They have the full right to do that instead of continuing to appease them.

Russia can’t conquer even a quarter of Ukraine, and they still invaded Ukraine. Sweden and Finland know that Russia can’t conquer them, and that knowledge has made them stay neutral in the past. But Russia has just shown with Ukraine that they might try anyway just because, and it’s a huge pain in the ass for Ukraine and for everybody else in Europe too. So it’s only natural that Sweden and Finland would like to avoid even being tried to be conquered by Russia.

And like we can see, the Russian invasion of Ukraine also impacts France, the UK, and Canada. It’s not that these countries have decided to brainlessly follow the US. They want to support other countries who are at more risk of being invaded by Russia because countries being invaded by Russia is a huge pain in the ass for everybody in the region, not just the country being invaded. So their foreign policy goals simply happen to line up with the US goals.