“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.
Hard agree with Blinken here.
honestly, i can’t see how any reasonable person wouldn’t.
edit: russia has proven, repeatedly, that they don’t honor their agreements. the only way that they won’t invade again is if they’re kicked out and if Ukraine has a modern military fully capable of kicking russia’s ass if it tries again.
The US has proven, repeatedly, that they don’t honor their agreements. The only way they won’t invade again is if they are kicked out and if Russia has a modern military fully capable of kicking NATO’s ass if it tries again.
you have a singular talent for twisting my words into nonsense.
I could never take credit for your demonstrated mastery of bullshit
“i know you are but what am I?”
now, now, don’t be bitter…
Said the liberal screeching while their global hegemony slowly crumbles around them.
if you’re hearing screeching, look into the mirror for the source. and I’m no liberal-- but sure, just name-call anyone who disagrees with you since you have no other rational argument. like a children do.
Supporting Ukraine is the only U.S. military action since WW2 that I can truly support. Even our action in response to 9/11 was fucked up.
Same, its one of the only decisions the US has made that is pretty solidly good.
Ah yes. Good old Joe Biden repositioning his troops from Afghanistan to Ukraine.
There are US troops in Ukraine? You are privy to some information we’re not?
As a belgian and therefore european, I disagree. US is making war by proxy here and WE are paying the price.
I am not for war but I have nothing to justify an irreducible support to Ukraine and interference with Russia.
NOPE
Agreed. This situation is far more complicated than the western mainstream media wants to convince people it is. This wasn’t a conflict that was born at the outset of war. There’s a reason why there’s ‘zero’ mention of things like the Minsk Accords or any considerations given to Eurasian security arrangements. Here’s an excellent primer on the background involved. I’m not at all trying to say what Russia did was justified, but they’ve got far more of a moral plateau to stand on than the US does.
Then you are morally okay with Ukraine being wiped off the map and the murder of as many of its citizen as Putin’s army can manage.
Dude, do you honestly think Putin is trying to militarily annihilate Ukraine? Especially when he considers Russians and Ukrainians to share the same cultural lineage and history. He made numerous overtures to try and ‘avoid’ a conflict from breaking out. Why was the west so adamantly against laying the framework for a security arrangement that made sense for all the parties involved?
He made numerous overtures to try and ‘avoid’ a conflict from breaking out.
Putin: “If you allow this country to have protection from me invading it, I’m going to invade it.”
U.S.: “Yeah… we’re going to consider allowing them protection from you.”
Putin: “Oh no… somebody stop me from invading this other country…! Here I go, I’m gonna invaaaade…”
U.S.: “Okay.”
[Putin invades Ukraine, begins murdering Ukrainians]
U.S., months later: “Alright that’s enough, we’re going to help these Ukranians to keep you from murdering them.”
Putin and his sheep: “tHe U.S. iS wArMoNgErInG!!!1!!”What do you think the Minsk Accords were?
Further acquiescence to a terrorist country’s demands?
Is that what we arw calling a peace treaty Ukraine violated that garanteed the righta of the Russian speaking minority of Ukrainians in donbas?
Non-binding treaties negotiated under duress that all fell apart the moment the ink was put to paper, through which Russia tried to control Ukrainian internal affairs?
Amazing that you understand that your country has consistently been on the wrong side of history since WW2, but also believe this this is the first time it’s not.
What’s wrong with helping a country defend itself from invasion by imperial warmongers?
And to be clear, yes, I am calling Russia imperial warmongers. They have been actively invading neighboring countries for decades to expand themselves. And what is an empire if not a nation built on the conquest of other countries?
Yeah, no. The people that say crap like this, and uncritically swallow down the propaganda, always fail to take geopolitics seriously. In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia. Twice. If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do? If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be? Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.
Why does tankies support Russia they’re fascists lol
“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists!”
In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia.
Russia entered WW1 on the same spaghetti-treaty-basis as every other nation that entered the conflict of their “own” accord.
The USSR entered WW2 as a German ally and tried to once again erase Poland and the Poles as the common German/Russian imperialist ambition required. And instead of preparing for the inevitable war that literally everyone but Stalin saw coming, the Soviets collectivly spent the mid-to-late 1930s partaking in the Great Terror, nearly destroying their own nation for the sake of satiating a madman’s ego and paranoia.
If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do?
…stop promoting chauvanism? Stop trying to revive the USSR against the will of those who willingly left? Stop invading your neighbours? There’s like a million different ways to remain as a anti-democratic leech-state in this world without needing to use military force.
If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be?
It’s nice you think the US can just arbitarily expand NATO without the consent of other members, that joining NATO isn’t a choice. Likewise, it’s nice you apparently don’t get it was the same for the Warsaw Pact - Mongolia wasn’t allowed in on it as European Communists opposed having to support potential conglict between the USSR and China.
Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.
They’ve invaded two former members of the USSR, have active orders to invade a third if the oppurtunity arises, and have drawn up plans for invading a fourth-one. Sorry, but I’ll rather accept the apparent reality that Russis is a myopic yes-man state that is currently doing war and committing genocide against Ukrainians.
That is absolutely not what the west is doing. Ukraine is being used as a proxy to weaken Russia using the formula that RAND outlined here. All the west is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict and it will not change the outcome. Anybody who thinks this is being done for the benefit of Ukraine is absolutely delusional.
Maybe people living in the west should focus on stopping their empire from conquering countries before getting on their high horse.
Nah, I prefer to stop countries from annexing pieces of other countries.
The US hasn’t annexed anything since 1959, and I was born too late to stop that. But Russia can’t help itself, and even gives youngsters a chance to oppose annexation.
Maybe you should figure out how to stop your own regime from invading countries before playing world police then. US is literally occupying part of Syria as we speak. Just how ignorant are you exactly?
There are far more Russian troops in Syria. I choose the lesser evil.
The legitimate government of Syria invited Russia to help it defend itself against the US regime, but do go on.
It’s really sad how duped American citizens are here. They truly believe that when changing their bio pics to a Ukraine Flag that they’re doing something. They believe their government has the best interest of Ukraine while what they’re actually supporting is their government using Ukrainian bodies to weaken an adversary under the guise of defense. No one learned anything after Iraq, it was mere MONTHS ago that liberals were giving BUSH praise! They don’t care about Abu Ghraib or what happened in Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people here are in for a rough awakening.
I’m confused. Do you think Russia taking Ukraine by force is what’s best for Ukraine? Do you think their people are volunteering to fight because they just don’t know what’s best for them? Even if Ukrainians wanted to maintain independence out of some misguided patriotism, isn’t it their right as a sovereign nation to decide that?
From the US perspective, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, aligning themselves with us. Then Russia invaded. If the US didn’t support Ukraine, the world would know they can prevent a weaker country from joining NATO by invading. After Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s no desire to send US troops but we can provide weapons and intelligence.
I personally don’t think it’s going to matter much for the average Ukrainian, as far as who controls their resources. I think it’s a tragedy that they’re fighting or dying over whether it’s Russian oligarchs or western oligarchs who will get to control their lives
To me it’s still hilarious that Americans themselves don’t think the government has a cynical, vested interest for getting involved in Ukraine. How the hell so many average liberals became hawks that dance to the neocon war drum, is still puzzling to me. Especially when it was their own side that produced the overwhelming evidence of American Foreign Policy that stands confronting people.
deleted by creator
Weapons, intelligence and Ukrainian bodies are an extremely cheap deal to weaken an adversary, don’t you think?
When it comes to wanting oil though, US and Iraqi bodies aren’t so important. As long as you can dupe your own citizens into believing there’s WMD’s, it doesn’t matter.
And of course Ukraine knows what’s best for them. That’s why they keep asking for a roadmap to NATO but the US is like “Nah” - https://www.ft.com/content/c37ed22d-e0e4-4b03-972e-c56af8a36d2e
So of course they’re left to negotiate. Again, the US Government doesn’t care but their citizens think they do.
The US is against peace if it doesn’t get more money to the military–industrial complex or if it doesn’t weaken an adversary, like in this case.
The US is against ‘any’ attempt by any country to use its resources for its own purposes. America behaves like any other imperial power has, throughout history. If Russia or China had the power the US currently does, they’d be doing the same thing. It’s why ‘Empire’ as a concept can coexist just as easily with ‘democracy’ as a framework as it does in autocracies. Because every State out there wants to maximize it’s share of power in the world. And this includes the US. That’s why fundamentally things don’t change all that much, regardless of who gets into power.
By volunteered to fight you mean being abducted on the street, beaten, and sent to die?
The people of Ukraine have told the world what their best interest is: removing Russian soldiers from their land, by force if necessary.
The US is only interested in Ukraine when their goals align. Everyone knows this, including most Americans and most Ukrainians.
However, it turns out that US and Ukrainian goals do, in fact, align. The US isn’t “using” Ukraine any more than Ukraine is “using” the US. They are openly cooperating to achieve a common interest.
The Ukrainian people are being kidnapped off the street and sent to die by the regime US installed in Ukraine after overthrowing a democratically elected government. Most Ukrainians don’t want to have a war and have their lives destroyed. The only people who want this war are ghouls living in the west who aren’t personally affected by it.
Tankies can always be counted on to project the worst in themselves.
There are hundreds of thousands of Russians in Georgia and Kazakhstan who can explain which side is kidnapping young men off the street and sending them to die for a war they care nothing about. Meanwhile, opinion polls of Ukrainians consistently show that an overwhelming majority want to continue the war until Russians are defeated.
Americans are subject to the best propaganda machine that money can buy, and people running the regime are certainly getting their money’s worth.
“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.” - Noam Chomsky
deleted by creator
What’s wrong is your framing. The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with. Russia invaded Ukraine as part of the proxy war with the US. Claiming that the US is just helping Ukraine with its war against Russia is completely misunderstanding what’s actually happening.
The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with.
So the U.S. made Putin’s army roll its miles long line of cold-war era military equipment into Ukraine in November of '21?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
It’s hard to lie about things that the whole world was watching.
Ironically, the west’s most looked to academic expert on Russian Studies would completely disagree with you. He warned that you would see the argument being pitched that NATO remains justified today, to “manage the security threats provoked by its own existence.” Even ‘US policymakers’ advised that continued NATO encroachment would result in a military provocation in Ukraine. Who ignored their advice? The American foreign policy establishment. But I’m sure ‘nobody’ ever saw that coming, right? You know who else made similar observations? George Kennan, who was the architect of America’s containment policy during the Cold War.
And you didn’t even carefully read the reply you commented to. He didn’t say the US was responsible for the Russian army rolling into Ukraine. He said the US is responsible for engineering the conditions for a proxy war to take place.
There’s nothing to lie about. What we’re seeing is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The US explicitly listed conflict with Russia and China as their new strategic focus during the Obama administration. The US was making plans to include Ukraine in NATO under Clinton while Clinton was saying to Russian leaders that this would never happen.
The US has been working on Ukraine for a very long time, as part of the strategy to dominate Europe and keep Russia from competing with them.
NATO, the world’s first transnational military force, staffed and led by literal Nazi officers, built specifically to fight Russia, has been deploying nuclear capabilities all around the world to encircle China and Russia. Deploying weapons systems to the Russia/Ukraine border would be a massive strategic check on Russia by the US. The US wanted this. It worked on Ukraine for decades to bring this about.
Russia invaded Ukraine to fight the US. The US funds, arms, trains, recruits, and provides logistical support for Ukraine but the people dying are Ukrainian.
This is the literal definition of a proxy war.
Lol. It’s pretty funny how he remarks:
It’s hard to lie about things that the whole world was watching.
And yet he has no idea. The fog of propaganda is ‘dense’ on both sides. People here in the west seem to think that propaganda is something that happens ‘out there’ to other nations. It’s extremely hard for them to see how the wool is being pulled over their own eyes.
“The first casualty of War is Truth” - Hiram Johnson
Let’s look at a couple of instances to contrast the media coverage, and see who’s really ‘lying’. Take something most Americans are familiar with; the assassinations of Nemtsov and Litvinenko. There’s a major between the way the west reported the accounts of their deaths, and how the Russians did it. Their deaths represented a major giveaway to the west, because they were two key opportunities that were quickly seized upon as a chance to demonize Putin (whatever your opinion of him is). Nemtsov was the leader of the Russian opposition. He was deputy prime minister under Yeltsin and was held in favorable regard by Thatcher. He met Obama in 2009. Supported Ukraine’s western orientation to Europe, etc. Made sense why the west liked him so much. There were people who thought it was a false-flag operation since Putin had nothing to gain, but the west stood to gain a great deal out of it.
When the Russian investigation got involved in his death, they brought in a number of suspects who’s would be connections to the murder investigators were unclear. There was speculation it was retaliatory for anti-Islamic remarks he made, but even they concluded at the time that those links were tenuous and there wasn’t much to convict them on. The west played up Putin’s connections to the murder based on previously dated murders that were frequently attributed (with ‘greatly’ varying degrees of evidence) to Russian state agencies. Those people included people like Sergei Yushenkov, Forbes Russian editor Paul Klebnikov, Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, etc. There were more people involved, and ‘many’ of them had directly received funding from the US State Department backed National Endowment for Democracy, ‘or’ by an NGO that was funded by the NED.
Poroshenko claimed Nemtsov was going to reveal evidence of direct Russian support for the uprising that happened in Eastern Ukraine. For others, Nemtsov was targeted either for his symbolic importance or his useful indispensability. Rivals like Alexei Navalny co-founded the ‘Democratic Alternative (DA!) platform and he was the vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party Yabloko. DA!’s leader Mariya Gaydar also got funding from the NED and worked with people like Ilya Yashin in the People’s Freedom Party (which is ‘also’ NED funded). Yashin was close to a guy named Vladimir Ryzhkov, who was a member of NED funded Washington based ‘World Movement for Democracy’. He was a leading member of the Strategy 31 campaign for free assembly (whose ranks were filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED funded NGO’s). And their activities had spread into Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg.
NED was involved in expunging itself from public documents. Russian intelligence had identified a network of rebellious organizations that were funded in part by the US State Department along the lines of previous color revolutions, that were readying for a Moscow coup. Gorbachev thought the killing would be a provocation of some kind to complicate or destabilize the regime. There was speculation among ’some’ western commentators like David North that thought if the US was planning a coup that would replace Putin with a leader who was more open to the west. He gave two examples. First was either Nemtsov was killed by elements within the Putin faction as a warning to western backed opposition or, he was killed by members of the anti-Putin faction who considered Nemtsov too cautious which would be an impediment to regime change.
The media played this up and cast as much suspicion as they could on Putin. But oddly, the west was dead silent about a string of mysterious opposition deaths that happened in Ukraine also, at this ‘exact’ same time (some of these happened the same day of Nemtsov’s death). Mykhailo Chechetov who was a key ally of President Yanukovych (member of opposition party Party Regional, “fell” from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev). Nikolai Sergienko, deputy chief of Ukrainian Railways (supporter of Yanukovych). Alexey Kolesnik (hung himself). Stanislav Melnik (opposition party, shot himself). Sergey Valter (mayor of Melitopol, hung himself a few hours before his trial). Alexander Bordiuga (deputy direction of Melitopol police was found dead in his garage). Alexander Peklushenko (former member of Ukrainian parliament and former mayor of Zaporizhi was found shot to death). Sergey Melnichuk (prosecutor in Odessa, “fell” to his death from the 9th floor). Yanukovych’s own son (“fell” through ice of Lake Baikal in Russia). Oleg Kalashnikov (another prominent politician, died of a gunshot wound). Oles Buzina (historian and journalist, shot dead). Serhiy Sukhobok (journalist, shot dead). Olga Moron (editor in chief of Neteshinskiy Vestnik was found dead in her home, her body showed signs of a violent struggle). These all happened from January through April.
Two people who were involved in the murder of Oles Buzina were charged and were said to be Neo-Nazi paramilitary militants. One of them got released on bail, paid for by Oleksiy Tamrazov, the owner of Media Group conglomerate and was a major oil and gas tycoon. But with Nemtsov, there were controversies that spilled over into many different allegations and counter-allegations that was spun into a story about differences in degrees of press freedom between Russia and Ukraine and the riskiness of journalism. After the elections happened in 2015 in Donbass, Ukraine banned 34 foreign journalists and 7 bloggers from entering the country. They were part of a larger group close to about 400 people across 100 organizations who were forbidden from entertaining on the grounds of “national security” concerns.
The MSM claims over here about the dangers of doing journalism in Russia and the official assassinations of journalists are hyper exaggerated. There was a study that statistically showed that Russia had 2x the number of newspaper journalists as the US, despite having 1/2 the population and when you adjusted for per capita rates, Russian journalists were shown to be safer than any number of ‘democratic’ countries that were friendly to the US (and that includes Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, etc.). Fedia Kruikov found that 1/2 of the killings of Russian journalists that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) attributed to professional activities were either “wholly” or “partially” falsified. Many of them were killed for reasons that had nothing to do with the administration.
In 2006, Litvinenko was a close associate of Boris Berezovsky. The British account of his death was ‘very’ flawed if you go deep into digging into it. The former lawyer Alexander Mercouris and someone else claimed that the inquiry Chair, Sir Robert Owen confused his role with that of a criminal judge who pronounced not only the cause of death but also accusing two supposed perpetrators (Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Ovum). He claimed that they had connections with the FSB and said the murder was “probably ordered” by Putin (when there was ‘zero’ factual evidence presented). He allowed no cross-examination and also no jury. A key witness refused to attend and the defendants weren’t present. They couldn’t be extradited because that goes against the Russian constitution. So the evidence that went against them was left unchallenged. Another claim was that The Chair reached outside the courtroom for evidence that suited his prejudices and his evidentiary standards varied between witnesses.
The report suggested Russian non-cooperation with the British, but Mercouris chronicled Britain’s refusal to cooperate with Russia. They rejected the suggestion that the inquiry take place in Russia. They didn’t allow Russian investigators access to Berezovsky. They refused to share their evidence of polonium poisoning. The case for Russian involvement was even undermined by the inquiry. Expert testimony demonstrated that polonium was widely available from many different sources, not just Russia. It wasn’t expensive as anyone thought. Evidence that Lugovoi (who had actually been a KGB agent) or Kovtun were FSB agents was circumstantial at best, in addition to the FSB motive behind it. The judge unreasonably showed credit to Litvinenko’s allegations against Putin and sided with Berezovsky who (with the assistance of Bell Potting promoted the narrative of Putin’s responsibility). He attached a ‘lot’ of weight to Litvinenko’s deathbed statement, even though there was reason to suspect it was written by Litvinenko’s colleague who was an ally of Berezovsky. Litvinenko himself had actually accused an entirely different party, Mario Scaramella of poisoning him. And there were other suspects involved who had motive for wanting to see Litvinenko dead. There was awitness who testified that he was blackmailing certain parties, and that their motives were more compelling than any attributable to the FSB.
This is the kind of shit the US does.
Removed by mod
I hope you get over yourself someday.
Russia was also on the wrong side of history since WW2. When two losers face off, logically one or the other must break their losing streak.
And as it turns out, the US gets the win. Congratulations.
It wasn’t, and if you think US is winning anything here then you’re completely delusional. Life is going to get really hard for you in the coming years.
Just like your leader once promised “we will bury you”. That was in 1959. He was delusional then, you are delusional today.
The coming years will be fine for the US, but not necessarily for Russia.
This has been a major reality check for me personally. For years I shook my head at the gargantuan US military budget thinking it’s ridiculous. Fast forward to February 2022 and I realize it’s the US once again cleaning up when Europe shits the bed. Ashamed, thankful and thoroughly convinced we need to spend a whole lot more in defense as well.
Idk about all that. The US has supported Ukraine and I support that. But Europe has stepped up to the plate too. While US refused to provide long range HIMARS, UK provided Storm Shadow. Poland has donated about all it has. Realistically, the US could drastically reduce it’s defense spending, provide all the support Ukraine could want, and still maintain the largest military force by a large margin.
Well that’s what I’m saying. European countries are giving all they’ve got to give while the US hardly breaks a sweat, yet the US provides a disproportionately large amount compared to the rest. Europe would be in a lot more trouble without the US, once again.
And I agree the UK deserves a lot of credit for pushing the envelope with tanks and long range and being the security provider for Sweden and Finland during the application process.
I think we mostly agree. I just disagree with your claim that the US should spend more on Defense.
I didn’t say the US should spend more, but Europe. Speaking as a European. E: trying to see if editing helps this federate.
It’s actually upsetting to read some people defend an illegal war of aggression in this thread. Just practice the golden rule for a change and imagine yourself being in the same situation. What if it was your country being invaded? Would you take up arms to defend your family, your friends, your neighbors? The bombs are dropping everywhere, and you have to hide in basements to prevent their terror attacks from taking away all that you hold dear.
Of course a country being invaded has the right to defend themselves and the right to fight back. The aggressors could end this war immediately but they wont because their leader is an insular autocrat. Isolating himself and giving orders without considering the best for the rest of the world. Devaluing human life from on top of a pedestal. This is the danger what happens when one single individual gains too much power and the rest of the world needs to be unanimously against it regardless of blind idealism.
Straight up. Israel and Ukraine are under constant attack these days and absolutely not be criticized for defending themselves even if they don’t always go about it exactly the right way.
Are you seriously comparing an apartheid state to a country that’s a victim of an invasion? Is Israel “defending itself” when it slaughters Palestinian children?
Have you ever been there? Do you know what apartheid actually means? Every single Palestinian without citizenship doesn’t have it only because they refused. And furthermore, in 2005 Israel actually forced its own citizens out of the Gaza strip, whole family is dislocated at gunpoint by their own government. And when the Palestinians moved in, the terrorists among them tore down the infrastructure and somehow convinced their brethren that the Israelis were to blame. Israel is not the one who’s incriminately shooting rockets from hospitals and schoolyards. Israel is not the one encouraging citizens to enter houses of worship and go on killing sprees. Israel is not the one who is encouraging and applauding suicide bombers attacking bus stops and pizza shops. Israel is the one who is sending out texts and dropping leaflets warning people to get out of buildings that they suspect their housing military equipment used to attack them before bombing said buildings. It is easily within Israel’s capability set to kill every last Palestinian and I imagine just about any other country put through what Israel’s been put through would be a lot more aggressive. They aren’t always in the right. There are things they have done wrong. But an apartheid state they are not.
Forgot to mention, the terrorists in charge of the Gaza strip also diverted equipment meant to be used for construction and instead chose to use it to dig tunnels to get through to Israel to carry out attacks and kidnappings.
I’m sorry, how do you think YOU would behave if your homeland were colonized? You’d just politely ask the colonizers to leave until they felt bad enough for you to listen? Not everything Palestinians do to fight back is good or justified, but they’re clearly the victims in this scenario.
Half of children in Gaza are suicidal. HALF. 60% self-harm, and 80% are depressed. Are you cool with that? Because that is directly Israel’s doing.
To be clear, Israel is not a unique evil. The US and China are at least as bad. But Israel is not magically exempt from criticism, nor is it remotely comparable to Ukraine.
Israel are not colonizers though. Israel is one of the indigenous people finally returning to their homeland. You can say they should share and I agree but the immediate attempt at their annihilation right when they were established definitely indicated that many of their neighbors were not keen on sharing nicely. It’s awful that the children in Gaza are suffering but the blame for that lies with the terrorists who use those children as human shields, tore down the infrastructure, and diverted construction materials meant for humanitarian aid to be used to enable further terrorist attacks, not the country that forced it’s own citizens out and left a fully functioning set of infrastructure for the new inhabitants.
Edit- I was hoping to get away from Reddit culture of disagree=downvote and was looking forward to productive respectful discussions here. So far it seems not to be working out but maybe we can still turn it around
If white Americans today went back to Europe and forcibly displaced the people living there, they would be colonizers. It doesn’t matter that they can trace their lineage back to that location. The idea that blood links you to land is nonsense.
Jesus Christ, how much Israeli propaganda have you been drinking? I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, but even assuming that’s all true, whose fault is it that people there needed humanitarian aid in the first place? Try reading sources on Palestinians that don’t have a pro-Israel agenda sometime.
My instance disables downvotes, so I can neither downvote you nor see your negative score, but good. I’m glad you’re getting downvoted. That’s exactly what uncritically regurgitated propaganda deserves.
How much Palestinian propaganda have you been reading? Americans weren’t forcibly expelled to begin with and even if they were they haven’t been actively demonstrably yearning and attempting to return ever since so the analogy fails on two counts. A third count as well actually because Americans haven’t had bigotry, prosecution, and murder sprees and mobs and pogroms constantly plaguing them everywhere they’ve been since they left europe.
Regarding the downvotes- good to know although ironically you are the person who would uld be least wrong to downvote me. You’re at least articulating what you disagree with than giving a cowardly anonymous thumbs down like those who have been downvoting.
Downvoted for being off topic and thread derailing.
Fair enough. I appreciate the critique.
illegal war
How would you define a “legal war”?
A war can be considered legal if it meets the criteria and conditions set forth by international law. On the other hand, an “illegal war” typically refers to armed conflicts that do not meet the requirements outlined in international law.
A war can be considered legal if it meets the criteria and conditions set forth by international law.
Practically every war throughout history violates that standard. Are there people out there who are truly this naive?
I would flee from the front line and I recommend everybody else do the same. Why get involved when states fight over their sphere of influence? Ukraine isn’t a state worth giving your life for. US imperial hegemony (a major reason for this conflict) should not be supported. They will abuse any support given to further their own goals and throw you (or anyone) under the bus when convenient.
What’s even more upsetting are the people who can write comments like yours, without irony. Why is it anybody who points out the causes of the conflict, gets decried as a Russian asset? Nobody here has explicitly said what Russia did wasn’t illegal or immoral, because it is. But what people like you don’t understand, is that events like this don’t happen in isolation. These moves are highly interactive and very dangerous. You can’t ignorantly just point to one in a vacuum and say, “‘that’s’ imperialism!”
Were people like you making similar protestations when the west backed the Maidan coup, which overthrew the democratically elected President (Yanukovych) in Ukraine? Were you criticizing the US for encouraging Ukraine to ignore and break its peace treaty that was agreed to with Russia, under the Minsk Accords? Were you criticizing the west for it’s media blackout of the continued shelling and massacring of Russian speaking citizens in eastern Ukraine (i.e. Donbass and Luhansk), while they were crying for Russia’s help? Of course you weren’t. You have no idea what I’m even talking about. Because you for, this conflict began with Russia moving into Ukraine. You only know what the MSM propaganda in the west tells you you’re supposed to believe. I fully understand Putin when he called the US “The Empire of Lies.” And people like you ignorantly fall for the bait. Every single time. Without fail. You’re a successful product of the American ideological and propaganda system. You haven’t seen past the dense fog of propaganda that’s deployed to keep you ignorant. It’s why the hidden is deliberately and intentionally hidden from you and they don’t want you finding out about it.
Why does hating western hypocrisy on the home front make me a Putin shill? Why is politics a ‘team sport’ that I’m betraying, because I call out the warmongering of my own team?
You bring up a lot of things I never typed that aren’t relevant to what I actually typed. It shows how deluded you are. For all the “western propaganda” where is all the evidence you speak of that that Russia invading Ukraine is somehow justified? Truth is not propaganda. Instead of attacking your imaginary fairy-tale “western” beast, try facing the reality that you are actually wrong. Take a mental journey and imagine yourself in the same position of the victims of war, then how wrong it is to somehow try to justify any of it.
… where is all the evidence you speak of that that Russia invading Ukraine is somehow justified?…
Did you even read what I wrote?:
Nobody here has explicitly said what Russia did wasn’t illegal or immoral, because it is.
Apparently not.
Take a mental journey and imagine yourself in the same position of the victims of war, then how wrong it is to somehow try to justify any of it.
I have. Have you? Did Putin not make peaceful overtures to Ukraine? Did he not want to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement? Did Ukraine not ‘agree’ to the Minsk Accords?
Ha, the local tankies are starting to find out that they’re outnumbered by reddit-fuges. Still, I believe that barring a negotiated peace, the war will continue for many, many years. The alternatives are either Russian withdraw and/or regime change or Ukrainian collapse, and neither seem likely in the near future. Even Kissinger, which is as blood-thirsty as they come, has suggested a negotiated peace, and it’s hard to imagine a negotiation that doesn’t concede something to Russia. The question isn’t a moral one. The deaths will continue to pile up until negotiation begins.
look, no reasonable person wants war-- but that’s the problem: those who started the war and are continuing it aren’t being reasonable. And they’re not going to negotiate any sort of peace if they don’t get what they wanted by stating the war in the first place: a slice of Ukraine. so, also believe there won’t be any peace until Russia leaves Ukraine, and that may take years to convince them to do-- at the barrel of a gun, sadly. Possibly a Russian regime change.
as for the local tankies… i don’t know how much of that you read, but when attempts at rational arguments failed, they just resorted to personal attacks and bullying, which is nothing foreign to me. battle-hardened with the most toxic of reddit trolls, it just rolls of my back. :P
I initially joined lemmy about 2 years ago, and the place was swamped with them. They have their own instance they hide out on, which lemmy.ml federates with but beehaw.org and sopuli.xyz do not. It will be interesting to see how the lemmy landscape evolves as time passes on.
Is there a way to block an entire instance in Lemmy like you can with mastodon? Or to just hide all the posts from them?
This thread has made me realize how insufferable they are
I don’t think so, at least not yet. I think the alternative is to sign up for an instance that doesn’t federate with them.
Yup, I also have an account on Beehaw but I’ve been switching back and forth since the local feed on this instance hasore traffic. I’ve found the community to be a lot more pleasant over there though
yeah… i have an account on both lemmy.ml, and on beehaw.org. currently, I’m sticking with lemmy.ml just because I want to see more content, and I think I an handle the shitty people due to having a think skin, but it’s nice to know that there are nicer instanes, should i need to deal with it on those terms.
Ukraine will at least need to make some sort of compromise over the port at Sevastopol. From what I understand, that’s the only port available for Russia’s Black Sea fleet. Russia has historically held a naval base there and would likely be unyielding on that point. Forcing Russia to butt out is one thing, but them losing significant amounts of their defense capability is another.
heh, I’m sure Russia very much feels this way, but I don’t see how Ukraine needs to make any compromises at all, nor why Russia should be given the opportunity to save any face. They got themselves into this mess and have done some terrible things. They deserve to crawl away with their tails between their legs with nothing to show for it. Why should they get anything after what they’ve done?
I fully agree that Russia crawling away with their tail between their legs would be the ideal solution. But at what price? Russia would be willing to spill a lot of blood over that base, even compared to an already bloody war. The reality is that starting negotiations with the assumption that the end agreement will include guarantees around Sevastopol will save a lot of lives without making a huge change from the 2014 status quo.
the price is Ukranian freedom, and it’s worth fighting for until Russia backs down. There is no rational argument to be made for Ukraine sacrificing the freedom of its citizens, for if they do - if Russia learns it can bully Ukraine into sacrificing its citizens and land - it will just come back for more.
russia has proven it will not honor its agreements, or this war would not be happening now. they need to learn their lesson and be beaten.
It was Ukraine not Russia who violated the Minsk Accords
Most of the people supporting the western ‘moral cause’ for Ukraine, have ‘zero’ understanding of the actual issue. They only know what the MSM in this country tells them. Until that changes, there’s no hope for a productive conversation. They think the conflict began at the moment the Russian incursion happened. If you tell them to justify Ukraine’s ignoring of the Minsk Accords, they have no answer and won’t reply, because they don’t know what it is. And in the midst of all that, Ukraine was shelling and murdering the Russian speaking population in Donbass and Luhansk, all the while Russia was waiting for them to implement the agreement and cease it’s military actions. You heard ‘zip’ about it from the western media. And you hear ‘zip’ about it from the people raking Russia over the coals in this thread.
Russia essentially wanted the Ukraine to become a State to Russia, similar to what Japan’s relationship to the US became, after World War 2. And it was ‘signed off on’, by Ukraine and other European states. The US encouraged Ukraine to ignore it and thumb it’s nose at Russia, while they militarily armed Ukraine, flowing in weapons, and building it up to the point where it could then safely violate the terms agreed upon and become yet another US client state, on Russia’s doorstep. The good old, ‘hold the baby in your arms and then hit your ex-husband while he attacks back, trying to rescue the situation’, and then call him the villain who’s abusing the baby.
But is it so important to have that patch of ground in Crimea? It would also give Ukraine a snap back mechanism if Russia ever reneges on a deal. Fund separatists or start a Russia-backed coup and bombs could be raining down on Russia’s precious warships within minutes. Stick to the deal and everything stays nice and peaceful indefinitely. The price is minor, since Russia already had the base in 2014. The change is that there would need to be a formal treaty that obliges Russia to non-interference in Ukrainian affairs and obliges Ukraine to allow supplies through to the Black Sea fleet. This was previously maintained by having a friendly/neutral Ukrainian government, but now terms must be in writing.
I’d love to see it, but that’s just petty vengeance on my part, wanting to see a bully punished.
I don’t know if a humiliated Russia is an ideal solution. The humiliation of Germany after WW I greatly contributed to the rise of Hitler, and we don’t want to see a repeat of that.
An ideal solution IMHO would be regime change, a complete withdrawl to pre-2014 borders, and full blame placed on Putin and his staunchest cronies, allowing the general public and even his supporting public to save face. The story that he lied to and misled the public might alleviate some humiliation at the withdrawal. Something like how WW II was handled should be the model: defeat of the previous regime, strict laws banning the worst behaviors leading to Putin’s dictatorship, curtailing corruption, and strong investment and rebuilding of Russian society by the victors. People tend to forget hurt egos more easily when they’re prosperous.
Whipping the dog that bit you doesn’t make a safer dog.
Edit: PS, it’s easy for me to say this. I have no friends or family raped, tortured or murdered by Russians. I have had no children abducted into re-education camps. If it happened yo me, I’d want a blood bath, a murderous swath cut through Russia to the Kremlin. I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want this. I’m just saying that, unless you’re commited to genocide, it’s more likely to come back around in an endless cycle of vengeance.
Speaking of the Marshall Plan, it had considerable push back at the time. It took a Soviet backed coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 for Americans to realize that leaving Europe starved and in tatters would push Europe into the arms of the Soviets. The Marshall Plan was a relatively cheap way to win battles before they ever occurred.
Russia will not, of course, be the same as post-WW2 Nazi Germany. The victors must be Russians, not outsiders. But Westerners should be willing to give freely, maybe with some basic stipulations around rule of law so Russia doesn’t fall back into being a dictatorial kleptocracy that threatens its neighbors.
Russians being victors meaning Russians overthrowing their oppressor? Because a Russian victory in Ukraine, as unlikely as it would be, would lead only to more aggression and certainly no outside investment (except perhaps from China, which is facing its own problems).
@pingveno Russia does have another port in the mainland, at Novorossiysk. Why did it not decide to use it instead? That is out of my understanding. Perhaps Putin just wanted to make Ukraine vulnerable in the south, or gain a longer shore on the Black Sea. Otherwise, I don’t know.
You’re right, I was wrong. However, Novorossiysk is 200 miles to the east, the equivalent of New York to Washington, DC traveled via water. Sevastopol gives the Black Sea fleet a much stronger presence. Russia would be highly resistant to weakening the Black Sea fleet, to the point of that being a deal breaker for any peace treaty.
Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there’s some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.
Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.
Yeah, that’s basically what I’m suggesting, plus security guarantees to avoid a repeat conflict. Before 2014, Russia was renting out the base.
Interesting, I didn’t realize that Russia was already renting out the base pre-2014. Thank you for that context.
It’s probably why Russia invaded Crimea in the first place. Otherwise it’s not all that useful.
Or you know it could be that Crimea is primarily populated by Russians and the regime the west installed after the coup was actively doing pogroms against Russian speaking people in Ukraine.
Why does the United States get absolutely any say in a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, there meddling stopped the last peace deals, and this is really none of their buisness. Let Ukraine set there terms and negotiate for themselves.
From what I understand, that’s the idea. They are just affirming the Ukrainian position and are saying hey, we won’t withhold support and force you into a peace agreement where Ukraine would concede land to Russia despite not wanting to
Except that isnt what was said what was said is that the United States will reject any peace treaty that does not include total Russian withdrawal, they are not just giving support in general, or to a point in particular, but dictating a term. This is a conflict that offically the US is not a party to and as such the US should not be making statements like this. Agian in my opinion it should not go farther than “The United States supports Ukraine in their efforrs for peace, and for all reasonable terms they put forward” if they go farther and they wanted to show it in support it would have been “As stated before, The United States suports the Ukrainian position, including the one mentioned by [offical X] on [Day y] that any peace would include total Russian withdrawl” given nither happened, it can only be taken as the US dictating terms for a thing that they have no buisness or right setting terms for
Actually that’s basically what it says in the first paragraph
the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms
Basically saying Ukraine won’t be pressured to accept a peace deal until they’re in a stronger position
First I dont see what there suport has to do with anything, and that is why I did not mention it, and second that is what the job of a meadeator country is for, right now the PRC has been offering but someone sugessted an African Union nation or a nation from south America, to ensure both sides get heard. That is couched language to discurage peace, Russia has indicated its willingness to talk. The longer they wait the more people die.
First of all, my suggestion was that it’d be up to them. If Ukraine and Russia are OK with PRC acting as mediator that’s really all there is to it. My point was that PRC aren’t necessarily neutral.
Secondly, a peace doesn’t necessarily mean less people dead in the long run, Russia has shown how little regard they have for civilian lives, and their imperialistic posturing begs the question as to who would be next? Moldova perhaps?
As an allegory, consider that you have a neighbour who believes he should be entitled to taking the eldest of your three children and half of your house. Would a good mediator then suggest that your neighbour should only get 25% of your house and perhaps your youngest child? I think not, and I think that’s more or less the position Ukraine has when it comes to their territorial integrity. I’m sure they’re open to debate NATO membership as well as keeping Sevastopol open, but they have been rather firm that they will not discuss any option involving concession of land to Russia, and I don’t think you, the PRC or anyone else are in a position to judge them for that.
First things first its Ukraine that violated the Minsk Accords, and bombed the citizens in donbass, who at the time where theirs, leading to this whole conflict when due to the violation of the accords Russias hand was for lack of a better term forced. If you will remember back it was not untill the DPR and LPR overwhelmingly voted for unification with Russia did they.
Second, you seem to be prejudging the medation China has made no statement beyond their want for peace, I am only stating that it is not the United Stateses place to be demanding any terms to a treaty let alone a mere cese fire.
I am a bit worried that you’re not arguing in good faith, since I struggle to see how anyone can believe that Ukraine was the one to break the various points agreed upon in Minsk II. In fact a major blockage has been Russia’s insistence that they’re not even a party, so how Ukraine could have somehow broken an agreement towards a country who by their own words aren’t a party demands some leaps in logic that I struggle to follow.
Since I don’t see us agreeing on even basic facts, I’d just like to thank you for the discussion and leave it at that.
Also its important to note this isnt about accepting its about starting talks, and once agian is the US setting terms
While I am at it, The PRC has been trying for months to broker peace and has Russia at the table, why doesn’t the US let Ukraine go to the table and negotiate, The United States has no right to be king of the world and has no right to be setting any terms for these talks.
There’s a huge irony that sits at heart of the American ideological system that never dawns on most people.
If you read the history of the modern university system in the US, one thing that’s worth highlighting was when ‘area studies’ effectively got banned. That’s stuff like Russian and Eastern Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, etc. There are still a couple of exceptions in places like Yale or Harvard, but they were largely disbanded due to the efforts of social scientists that deemed them ‘unscientific’. And yet it’s ironic, because if you really have ever gotten the chance to speak with a lot of foreigners, one thing that comes through is the level of shock or pause when they ultimately discover that most of the closed minds in the American intellectual sphere are ‘liberal’ minds.
In theory, America is a perfectly free and open society. In practice, it’s an open society with a closed mind. American intellectuals don’t listen to the rest of the world. The elite wisdom essentially believes that only societies which adopt the American model and copy American style, western liberal values, can really succeed. Really cuts against the whole grain of ‘diversity’.
Contrast that with China for instance, in the foreign policy sphere. Whatever else you think about the CCP, in commerce or military operations or multilateral institutions, in dealing with them, one doesn’t walk away with the impression they’re trying to ‘make you Chinese’. They aren’t trying to export Chinese Communist Party values to the Taliban. They aren’t demanding you adopt gay rights. They aren’t asking you to adopt their authoritarian model of governance, etc. Sure, you can point to things like the Uyghurs as an exception. But then again, ask an Iraqi, ask a Libyan, ask a Cuban, ask a Guatemalan, etc. Liberals love to proselytize their own ideas to the ends of the Earth, even when it means military action, but can barely tolerate a domestic Christian missionary in their own neighborhood.
It always reminds me of Lee Kuan Yew’s brilliant refutation of liberal western nonsense.
It’s very ironic how you are fine with china’s involvement but not the US’
The difference is china is merely acting as a medator, a nutural 3rd party whos job is to 1) host the negotiations 2) help the 2 sides truly hear each other and come to a compromise. If you listen to what China says about this and how they interact with Russia its in keeping with this role, that all they want is to see the fighting end. The United States by dictating terms has forfitted there ability to fufill this role, China however has sugested nor offered any terms, only a table to talk at. If you really don’t want China it doesn’t have to be China, but they already have one side seated, and I would like to hear who else you would propose?
Is this really true though? A neutral third party would not supply weapons or have any economic incentive to the outcome of the conflict, which China plainly does have. I’m not saying the US or really any NATO country is in a better position, however saying China is only interested in peace and are a neutral third party is disingenuous.
And as to what Blinken is saying, that’s something Ukraine has been saying since the invasion began. Sure it’s not his place, however if you interpret it charitably, it could also be construed as supporting the stance of your ally in the face of pressure towards an agreement they don’t really want.
Please enlighten me both on what the PRCs economic and Weapon selling intrests lie, because as far as I can tell they have not supplied any weapons, and the only economic action if you can even call it that, that the PRC has taken was not play along with US Sanctions. I would also like to hear who you think would be a better medator, because contrary to popular belief I too would like this conflict to come to a quick and diplomatic solution, the less deaths, the less destroyed homes the better.
Second I don’t see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more, it has lost that ability quite a while ago by virtue of its actions on the geopolitical stage, This whole thing would read different if it was a genaric “The United States backes Ukrainians position in this negotiation” but that would ofcorse require negotiations to be happening, negotiations that are not at present happening. This is a very clear, position the US is taking and “Strongly Sugesting” Ukraine adopt aswell.
Please enlighten me
China has supplied drones and more than likely advanced technology like semi-conductors and equipment meant for operating radar systems/weapons guidance and similar. Some of this is not “official” support, in the sense that civilian Chinese companies are supplying drones, however this is certainly being used for military purposes within Ukraine. Whether or not this can be proven 100% is less important, since the appearance of bias is as detrimental to neutrality as actual bias.
With regards to the economic incentive, Chinese trade has increased by 30% since the invasion began, making China by far the most important trading partner for Russia.
Now, I am making no judgement as to the morality of this and I am certainly not making any pro US arguments, I am just pointing out that painting China as a neutral part here is disingenuous, they absolutely have interests that align more closely with their good friend and trading partner Russia vs. helping Ukraine and the rest of Europe reach any goals they might have.
Second I don’t see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more
That’s fine and I understand the sentiment (although as a rhetorical device, I find the “principle of charity” to be worthwhile and helpful towards mutual understanding), however I don’t think this makes either Russia or China any better - they just might all be a bunch of evil bastards :)
Then I agian ask you, who would you put as a better option for the host and medator of these talks?
So if the war end right now would that mean Russia would withdraw it’s troops from Ukraine? No it wouldn’t, so implicitly engaging in peace talks while Russia holds territory in Ukraine would mean conceding territory. Why would china want that? Isn’t that meddling in the war?
They say they want peace and are willing to hold talks, I am mot sure what your getting at, in no war ever has the beginning of peace talks been the cesation of the war, and how the war ends is determined by said peace talks, talks that of right bow are not happening.
Now if you are trying to argue that the mere act of trying to hold peace talks or offering to hold peace talks, or holding peace talks is taking a position in the war? I dont think we need to inform Switzerland that they have infact never been nutral in any conflict they mediated.
As for what China wants, they have stated all they want is peace many times, they do not have a horse in the race on who gets what, that makes them the ideal mediators.
So what is the point of having peace talks if not the cessation of war?
The end goal is the cessation of the war, but the fighting contenues untill a cesefire or peace treaty is negotiated and signed, and the war contenues untill said treaty is signed. A sad truth of war is while diplomats are haggling over words on a page the fighting still contues, the war ends when the negotiations end.
I expect that Ukraine is also saying “no” to any peace deal that doesn’t include total Russian withdrawal.
I would interpret a statement like this from the US as meaning “we’re not going to lean on the Ukrainians to accept any sort of compromise that they’re not already interested in accepting,” which is perfectly fine IMO.
How the Ukrainians act at the negotiating table and how they negotiate ought to be left up to them. However it is out of line for the United States to say this, first as a nation who isn’t officially party to the conflict setting any terms or tones to the negotiation is out of line we should be hearing this from Ukrainian Officials instead. This is ment from Washington to be a very clear signal to Ukraine on what to do.
… This is ment from Washington to be a very clear signal to Ukraine on what to do.
“There are two kinds of countries. Those the US sanctions, and those the US arms.”
Anyone who’s ever lived abroad is capable of comprehending what so many US citizens seem incapable of doing, and that’s understand why the US isn’t liked very much by a ‘lot’ of other countries; including the big players in Europe. Even former military advisors have said as much on the MSM, only coincidentally, to never get invited back on again, after mentioning it.
Sorry for being offtopic: Is there a section for Ukraine related news? (The Ukraine subreddit is the only thing I truly miss from Reddit.)
There is !ukraine@sopuli.xyz for example.
Bunch of people keep talking about how the US shouldn’t broker peace deals and China should. Hypocrisy at its finest.
The fact is, having a third party nation recommendation for peace or no peace is a standard for centuries, and if that nation is a global hegemony with nuclear weapons, then it makes sense.
Bunch of people keep talking about how the US shouldn’t broker peace deals and China should. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Would you have North Korea brokering deals between Thailand and Laos?
If they actually had any influence instead of being a laughing stock, then it would be the norm, yes. They don’t though, but China could and would be the better example instead of a Red herring. Or Australia (they don’t have nukes, but similar influence and such).
People want the war could end, but US won’t let it. What hypocrisy?
people want the war to end
Russia clearly doesn’t. In fact they were the ones who started it
It was Ukraine that violated the Minsk Accords not Russia
There’s little point in arguing with people who think history began yesterday.
Ukraine started the war in 2014 by shelling civilians in the donnbass
What’s more interesting is how it seems all the home grown, American establishment sycophants think backing a coup attempt against Ukraine’s democratically elected president (Yanukovych) doesn’t count, when you tell them the US had a hand in starting the conflict.
deleted by creator
People refuse to hold their own side accountable and recognize what their contribution to the problem is.
The US is one of the least peaceful states in the world, and that’s no easy feat. Plus, they are openly involved in the proxy war, as opposed to China.
I’m not seeing the hypocrisy here.
You’re arguing against a position that’s every bit as dumb and I’ll-informed, as the chick that heads up the NED, attempting to overthrow regimes opposed to the US all over the world. The people replying to you in ignorance aren’t in need of a ‘debate’, but an education.
Imperialism is bad even when it’s not the USA doing it.
Ukraine absolutely deserves our support in this war.
Do I understand it correctly, that “total withdrawal” is giving back the regions that agreed to be with Russia, alongside getting the troops back?
You mean that separatist regions that got installed by Russia and would already have lost without the Russian troops intervention in 2014 - 2015? That regions that have a government of brutal former criminals (that brutally oppressed every opposition)? Yes those too. If the people really want to be part of Russia, they can ask for a fair referendum with international observers after Russia fucked off.
They can also just move to Russia if they don’t like living in Ukraine
Let’s take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here’s how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
And we can see a few interesting facts about Crimea in a US government study. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
And finally, here are some facts, as documented by western media, about the regime in Ukraine that you’re evidently supporting
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHhGEiwCHZE
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329
- https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2021-05-04/ty-article/.premium/ukrainian-official-changes-tune-on-unacceptable-march-honoring-ss-unit/0000017f-e0e2-d7b2-a77f-e3e7ee990000
- https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
- https://consortiumnews.com/2022/12/29/on-the-influence-of-neo-nazism-in-ukraine/
- https://consortiumnews.com/2022/12/29/evidence-of-us-backed-coup-in-kiev/
- https://gordonhahn.com/2015/05/02/ukraines-neo-fascist-right-sector-claims-responsibility-again-for-2-may-2014-terrorist-pogrom/
- http://www.errc.org/news/anti-roma-pogroms-in-ukraine-on-c14-and-tolerating-terror
that’s some impressive mental gymnastics for supporting an illegal invasion and nothing you said changes that. if these people don’t like living in Ukraine, they can leave. That doesn’t excuse Russia for invading another sovereign nation, and Ukraine has every right to defend itself.
it reminds me of this:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
that’s some impressive mental gymnastics for supporting an illegal invasion and nothing you said changes that…
Lol, and I’m sure you were out there protesting just as much when the US illegally invaded Iraq, Afghanstan, bombed Libya, sanctioned Iran, overthrew the governments of practically half of Latin America, installed Suharto in Indonesia, and committed dozens of other crimes around the world.
The only people doing mental gymnastics here are the ones who genuinely believe that the west is helping Ukraine defend itself as opposed to destroying Ukraine in a proxy war with Russia. You are all going to have a lot of soul searching to do at the end of all this.
“i know you are but what am I?” is the argument of a child, and pretending that the west helping Ukraine is the same as Russia bombing it to bits is treating your audience like children.
believe it or not, not everyone is as foolish as you.
The west is not helping Ukraine, and the fact that people in the west continue to pretend that’s the case if absolutely sickening. And you’ve demonstrated beyond all doubt that you are far more foolish than me.
The west is not helping Ukraine
so you say, but in every demonstrable way, we are, including by every claim made by their government and the plurality of their people. and it’s pretty hilarious that you claim to be some authority to make claims to the contrary. The only ones who would claim otherwise are Russia and their supporters, of which you are clearly one.
so, why should anyone take your positions seriously?
Wow, your maps are so persuasive!
I’m excited to report that I just looked at map of Kosovo, it shows almost the same thing! That region is full of people who consider themselves ethnic Albanians who don’t support Serbia in the slightest.
I guess that means that you must support the annexation of Kosovo to Albania, by force if necessary, right? I mean, because otherwise that would mean that you are nothing more than a reflexive, anti-West stooge and there’s no way that could be possible.
If people in Kosovo actually want to join Albania then they should be able to. Last I checked though, there are plenty of Serbs living there who recently clashed with NATO troops. You want to remind me why that happened?
Because the PM of Kosovo was an idiot. Fortunately he now seems to be willing to change his plans.
Warmonger. Don’t the Ukrainians get a say in whether the US can sacrifice so many people for US goals?
It’s funny how you blame the US for Russia’s invasion and pretend like Ukraine didn’t ask for our help.
The US has been encircling Russia and China for decades with nuclear weapons and nuclear first strike capabilities. The idea that Russia just up and invaded Ukraine for no reason is a Western liberal construction that requires memoryholing the last 25 years of US/NATO aggression, expansion, and nuclear development.
That’s not what I said.
yet it’s very obviously what you meant
It’s irrelevant who I blame for the war.
I’ll explain.
The are several interpretations of what I said. Yours among them. But I am now confirming, for the second time, that I did not mean what you think I meant.
Two other valid interpretations, which I did intend, include: (1) that the US and it’s executives and diplomats are warmongers; and (2) that Ukrainian demands are for the Ukrainians alone to determine.
The war is now an historical fact. Who started it is a significant issue but is neither here nor there for the point that I’m making. I’ll elaborate on that point so as to put a stop to the evident confusion.
Peace will not be reached for so long as the US seeks profits in (a) selling weapons and (b) the reconstruction of Ukraine. The longer the war and the more destruction it causes, the more profit in it for the US.
The US is interested in Ukraine only insofar as it reaps these profits. I say nothing of ordinary Americans, who are likely genuinely and rightly appalled at the war and hope for the US to end it. Unfortunately, if they hope for this, they do not know their government nor it’s financial interests. That is tragic, because if they did know, they might better help to end this war and many others.
The true ends of those decision makers (in the US and in Europe, too) are clear in statements like those in the linked article. If peace was the aim, the US would not be making demands that it knows Russia will never agree to. Are Russia’s demands acceptable? It’s again beside the point.
The question is, what is the quickest way to end the war? The answer to that question will reveal the steps that must be taken. I struggle to see how inflammatory warmongering statements from a known warmonger state could ever be part of that answer or those steps.
it’s irrelevant who you blame because your argument is a strawman and tu quoque logical fallacy.
Russia, and Russia alone is to blame for the war in Ukraine, as they are the ones who invaded and refuse to leave. The war will end only when they leave, regardless of how much you try to deflect blame onto anyone else.
edit: and the fact that you call the US a “warmonger” simply for helping Ukraine defend itself reminds me of this:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
have a nice day.
At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.
I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history. Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
No amount of ‘just war’ will cancel out what the US did to Iraq or Libya or Vietnam or Laos or any number of other military atrocities.
At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.
i never agreed to that
I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history
now you’re just changing your argument again by moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.
Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren’t necessarily factual, you’re just arguing in bad faith because you have a grudge about what the US did in the past, which has no bearing here– and is therefore irrelevant. like I said: a straw man and a tu quoque logical fallacy. in other words: bullshit. You just don’t like the US, and you’ll malign them for helping Ukraine defend itself, regardless of the merits, which you, yourself admit.
Your argument is no based in facts, it’s based in your agenda of anger and bitterness.
Accusing everyone you disagree with of having darvo? Projection?
Removed by mod
Wait, I thought Ukraine was a sovereign, independent state. That’s what the media been screeching about for over a year. Now it is saying USA is deciding their foreign policy?
Funny that
how is expressing an opinion equate to “deciding their foreign policy”?
The US has no buisness in expressing a term of peace to a conflict they are not a party too, the only explination for this, and its supported by the past actions of The United States, is that it is dictating forign policy to Ukraine
Here are some gentlemen “expressing an opinion”.
It’s Schrödinger’s regime in Ukraine that’s both completely independent and does exactly what its western masters tell it to do.
Translation: Blinken says that US wants to drag the war out as long as possible.
*as long as is necessary. russia can withdraw whenever it likes.
Just like Afghanistan.
not in any way like afghanistan
You’re right, US is going to pull out after only two years instead of 20.
pull out of what? we’re not in. we have no troops over there like we did in afganistan.
Pull out of the proxy war that US engineered and is currently fuelling. This war will be over as soon as US stops pouring billions into it.
“Over” with Putin having gotten what he wants after killing millions of Ukrainians and still occupying their land. So no, fuck Putin and fuck anyone who supports his insane bloody quest for glory.
buddy, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
