Ukraine

[Silvanus]

Are any of them true?

Well, yes. He reneged on a deal he'd negotiated and agreed, and pursued a policy that was widely despised in his country, under economic pressure and blackmail. He launched a lethal anti-protester crackdown and endorsed the use of live weapons against civilians. And his security forces collaborated with Russian security forces in street violence against Ukrainian civilians. Any one of which is traitorous.

Agreeing to the terms set by Europe would have been malicious conspiracy to promote a hostile foreign power over his own country.

The IMF terms were dogshit.

Yet, Ukraine's parliament overwhelmingly approved the association agreement, and Yanukovych himself endorsed it. Until Russia blackmailed him.

And so instead, we had an actual malicious conspiracy to promote a hostile foreign power over his own country.

 

[Agema]

Elon knows better than the aerospace engineers.

I can't help but feel that an air force entirely reliant on remote control would be alarmingly vulnerable to hacking or signal jamming. Does any military want to risk it's entire air force being crippled that way?

 

[Hades]

Are any of them true?



Agreeing to the terms set by Europe would have been malicious conspiracy to promote a hostile foreign power over his own country.

Its always pretty facinating to see tankies try to rehabilitate and reinvent yanukovych as some sort of freedom fighter against the evil west who just wanted to ''protect'' Ukraine. He's a corrupt olicharch who jails his political opponent, pretty much the furthest from left wing you can get, yet tankies keep carrying water for him. Had the trade deal been some nefarious plot to rob the public yanukovych would have been the first to sign up rather than martyr himself. And had the Ukrainian public been on his mind he'd not have forced them into the cultural and economic dead end that's Russia, nor respond with extreme violence agains them the moment they object.

I know ''the enemy of the enemy is my friend'' but is Europe sooo horrible we now count oligarchs working on behalf of Russia as our friends?

 

[Agema]

The enemy of your enemy is... also your enemy.

Otherwise, they'd just be your ally, and you wouldn't bother with the whole "enemy of my enemy" description.

 

[Silvanus]

Had the trade deal been some nefarious plot to rob the public yanukovych would have been the first to sign up rather than martyr himself.

Keep in mind, Yanukovych did endorse the EU association agreement. His cabinet unilaterally supported it; the Verkhovna Rada overwhelmingly voted in favour; and he himself encouraged its ratification. Including the EU's required justice reforms, though he dragged his feet on the latter.

He then reversed course following the threat of retaliatory trade restrictions from you-know-who. Unilaterally, without his own cabinet or Congress' support.

Neither loan offer (either the IMF's or Russia's) were a nefarious plot. Both were simply trying to encourage Ukraine to build closer ties with their own blocs. The terms of neither offer were good: the IMF demanded domestic austerity measures (as they also did in Greece), while Russia demanded anti-democracy crackdowns, and ended up withholding agreed funds unless Yanukovych agreed to violent suppression methods.

 

[Seanchaidh]

He launched a lethal anti-protester crackdown and endorsed the use of live weapons against civilians.

This is contested and likely false considering how long it took to frame up a few of the Berkut police.

The Maidan Massacre Trial Verdict, and Cover-up, Stonewalling, and Evidence Tampering

The Maidan massacre trial verdictEvidence in Ukraine in October 2023 confirmed that many Maidan activists were killed and woundedWounded and BBCBBC and ARDARD TVTV (television) journalists were shot at on February 20, 2014, not by Berkut or other law enforcement but...

link.springer.com

But this contradicts the war narrative, so you never wanted to hear it.

 

[Silvanus]

This is contested and likely false considering how long it took to frame up a few of the Berkut police.

Treating the sniper incident as the sole example is rather odd. Security forces had been killing protesters for much of two months by then.

There's a question mark over the 20th Feb snipers' identity and its fair to say that's contested. Yet security forces had been freely killing protesters already; Yanukovych said they had the right to use weapons and acted according to existing laws, even when denying personal involvement.

But this contradicts the war narrative, so you never wanted to hear it.

Amusing phrasing, given the narrative actually used to launch this war is the one you're all-in on.

 

[Ezekiel]

Lindsey Graham gave the game away on national TV a few days ago. That it's about precious resources. Why do the Republicans still allow this idiot to speak?

 

[Samtemdo8]

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-readies-725-million-arms-aid-package-ukraine-sources-say-2024-11-27/

Is this a higher than usual amount?

 

[Thaluikhain]

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-readies-725-million-arms-aid-package-ukraine-sources-say-2024-11-27/

Is this a higher than usual amount?

The article suggests that it is. And before the US found extra stuff to give to Israel they were saying that there was nothing they could send to Ukraine.

 

[Satinavian]

Lindsey Graham gave the game away on national TV a few days ago.

Just because he thinks the US can profit from the war does not mean there is any elaborate plan or that he is privy to relevant decisionmaking.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Half of Ukrainians Want Quick, Negotiated End to War

Ukrainians are growing increasingly weary of the war with Russia. Gallup's latest surveys of Ukraine show 52% would like to see the war end as soon as possible.

news.gallup.com

Are we still listening to Ukrainians?

Treating the sniper incident as the sole example is rather odd. Security forces had been killing protesters for much of two months by then.

There's a question mark over the 20th Feb snipers' identity and its fair to say that's contested. Yet security forces had been freely killing protesters already; Yanukovych said they had the right to use weapons and acted according to existing laws, even when denying personal involvement.

"Freely killing"? Your characterization is misleading at best.

Amusing phrasing, given the narrative actually used to launch this war is the one you're all-in on.

It's only corroborated by predictions made by people involved in US decision-making, academics who studied the matter, and the public statements of US and European officials.

 

[Silvanus]

Are we still listening to Ukrainians?

Hooray for attrition, and the unrestricted bombing of civilian homes and energy infrastructure! Just say what you mean.

"Freely killing"? Your characterization is misleading at best.

When American security forces gun down civilians or protesters, you rightfully condemn the kind of weaselly bootlicking people come out with in defence of lethal cops and mercs.

It's only corroborated by predictions made by people involved in US decision-making, academics who studied the matter, and the public statements of US and European officials.

*Some such people (while you dismissed such predictions, insisting anyone who said Russia would invade was being "hysterical"). Though even those who acknowledge that NATO expansion would be seen as provocative also tend to recognise that Russia's response is an unjustified, illegal annexation.

Of course, more such figures corroborate the clearer explanation, that Russia invaded a country to seize land and resources, and to restore a mythical imperial ownership.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Hooray for attrition, and the unrestricted bombing of civilian homes and energy infrastructure! Just say what you mean.

So that's a "no", then. Only listen to them if they want to fight. We can't trust them now that they've been manipulated by their own experiences.

When American security forces gun down civilians or protesters, you rightfully condemn the kind of weaselly bootlicking people come out with in defence of lethal cops and mercs.

I do not however abandon any attempt at accuracy. The Right Sector sniping absolutely dwarfs the previous violence.

Also, I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything condemning the killing of Ashli Babbitt nor those who defend it, which is the closest analog to the violence in Maidan Square that preceded the sniper attack.

*Some such people (while you dismissed such predictions, insisting anyone who said Russia would invade was being "hysterical"). Though even those who acknowledge that NATO expansion would be seen as provocative also tend to recognise that Russia's response is an unjustified, illegal annexation.

And Biden-- who also said Russia was going to invade, although missed the timing-- did seemingly everything he could to cause it to happen; Russia was actively seeking a diplomatic resolution to the provocation caused by NATO seeking to expand to Ukraine and Biden dismissed all that in favor of simply saying that Russia was going to invade. Very helpful, thanks, Biden.

Of course, more such figures corroborate the clearer explanation, that Russia invaded a country to seize land and resources, and to restore a mythical imperial ownership.

American security state ghouls like vacuous Victoria Nuland and their handmaidens tend to echo the State Department and Western media invention of reality. That is the expectation regardless of the facts. It is remarkable that such a substantial portion do not in this case.

 

[Silvanus]

So that's a "no", then. Only listen to them if they want to fight. We can't trust them now that they've been manipulated by their own experiences.

I'm fully in favour of Ukraine taking the lead in negotiations. Unfortunately, Putin has said he'll only talk to the US. If they wish to negotiate to put an end to the massacre Russia has unleashed upon their civilian population, that's their prerogative, and then everything must be done afterwards to ensure the perpetrator cannot just do so again a few years down the line (like they did last time).

I do not however abandon any attempt at accuracy. The Right Sector sniping absolutely dwarfs the previous violence.

Also, I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything condemning the killing of Ashli Babbitt nor those who defend it, which is the closest analog to the violence in Maidan Square that preceded the sniper attack.

The contested sniping accounted for a plurality of the violence of those two months, yes. Yet even without it, we'd have tens of protesters gunned down by security forces, which would be more than enough to satisfy my original characterisation. Yanukovych explicitly said security forces had the right-- so "Freely killing" is quite fair.

The comparison of protesters in the street with people storming the capitol to overturn an election result, used to justify the slaughter of the former, is just rancid nonsense.

And Biden-- who also said Russia was going to invade, although missed the timing-- did seemingly everything he could to cause it to happen; Russia was actively seeking a diplomatic resolution to the provocation caused by NATO seeking to expand to Ukraine and Biden dismissed all that in favor of simply saying that Russia was going to invade. Very helpful, thanks, Biden.

K. You know who had full control over whether the invasion happened? Russia. They do in fact control who they invade. Thanks, Russia.

American security state ghouls like vacuous Victoria Nuland and their handmaidens tend to echo the State Department and Western media invention of reality. That is the expectation regardless of the facts. It is remarkable that such a substantial portion do not in this case.

Ah, so they're a source of credibility when they say things you agree with, and a source of distrust when the same sources say things you don't. Seems rational.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Unfortunately, Putin has said he'll only talk to the US.

And the US wants to exhaust Ukraine of anyone that can fight.

The US has the ability to give Russia what it wants; Ukraine does not. That is the unfortunate reality of a proxy war in which both sides are fighting for their security, but one side is threatened by a much larger group that is making use of their adversary. It also suggests that "Russia just wants territory and resources" is incorrect, since Ukraine could cede that unilaterally. Also, to my knowledge Ukraine has outlawed negotiation with Russia. Not sure why. So that would be another reason Russia would seek to negotiate with the United States instead. The last time Russia negotiated with Ukraine directly, very early in the war, the resulting deal was squashed by Boris Johnson while he visited Kiev. So it would make sense for Russia to negotiate with the people who seem to be actually deciding matters of state for Ukraine: Ukraine's apparent superiors.

The contested sniping accounted for a plurality of the violence of those two months, yes. Yet even without it, we'd have tens of protesters gunned down by security forces, which would be more than enough to satisfy my original characterisation. Yanukovych explicitly said security forces had the right-- so "Freely killing" is quite fair.

Absurd leap in logic from a(n unfortunately) rather garden variety opinion about what riot police are allowed to do in response to violence.

Ah, so they're a source of credibility when they say things you agree with, and a source of distrust when the same sources say things you don't. Seems rational.

Admissions against interest are more credible than affirmations of a hegemonic narrative promoted and bankrolled by our ruling class, yes. Is this really the state of your media and political literacy? I guess it would explain why you were so eager to believe certain falsehoods about Hamas.

 

[Silvanus]

And the US wants to exhaust Ukraine of anyone that can fight.

The US has the ability to give Russia what it wants; Ukraine does not.

Ukraine is the only one who has the ability to give Russia what it wants-- Donbas, and eventually more land beyond.

That is the unfortunate reality of a proxy war in which both sides are fighting for their security, but one side is threatened by a much larger group that is making use of their adversary. It also suggests that "Russia just wants territory and resources" is incorrect, since Ukraine could cede that unilaterally.

Russia has never been attacked by Ukraine or NATO. Russia, however, has attacked three sovereign non-NATO countries and threatened dozens more.

The reason Putin is pushing to "negotiate" with the US rather than Ukraine is because it knows its demands are unacceptable to Ukraine, but that the US-- with less skin in the game-- can be convinced to end support, after which such demands can be fulfilled by force.

Also, to my knowledge Ukraine has outlawed negotiation with Russia. Not sure why. So that would be another reason Russia would seek to negotiate with the United States instead. The last time Russia negotiated with Ukraine directly, very early in the war, the resulting deal was squashed by Boris Johnson while he visited Kiev. So it would make sense for Russia to negotiate with the people who seem to be actually deciding matters of state for Ukraine: Ukraine's apparent superiors.

Russia's attempts at negotiation with Ukraine thus far have amounted to, "give us all territory we want, and demilitarise your country, or else we'll slaughter your people and destroy your energy grid". Good faith negotiations have not been attempted.

Absurd leap in logic from a(n unfortunately) rather garden variety opinion about what riot police are allowed to do in response to violence.

Riot police gun down protesters, the President says they acted right and legally, and its a leap to say those police acted with political impunity? Ok. Absolutely none of these mental contortions would be going on if Western security forces had done exactly the same things.

Admissions against interest are more credible than affirmations of a hegemonic narrative promoted and bankrolled by our ruling class, yes. Is this really the state of your media and political literacy? I guess it would explain why you were so eager to believe certain falsehoods about Hamas.

When you believe all media commentators, academics, nonprofits etc are automatically shills for the government of the country they live in, then I can see how you'd come to this conclusion.

In truth, quite a lot of these people do benefit from parroting the Russian line. Certainly you've noticed that a high proportion of the commentators you cite-- most of them Westerners-- are nonetheless bankrolled by Russian state companies.

 

[Hades]

The last time Russia negotiated with Ukraine directly, very early in the war, the resulting deal was squashed by Boris Johnson while he visited Kiev. So it would make sense for Russia to negotiate with the people who seem to be actually deciding matters of state for Ukraine: Ukraine's apparent superiors.

I wonder why Ukraine rejected Russia's offer of ''give up everything that could possibly protect you from us and then we come invade you again next year when you're disarmed and isolated''

Its also very similar to an earlier deal that involved Ukraine giving up ways to protect itself only for Russia to renege on their side of the bargain. Ukraine gave up the nukes it could use to protect itself in exchange for Russia respected its sovereignty. Despite the nukes being handed over Russia has never respected Ukraine's sovereignty and even resorted to poisoning presidents, forbidding trade deals and war to try and blockade Ukraine's sovereignty. Why would anyone trust Russia to hold up its end of the bargain this time?

The US has the ability to give Russia what it wants; Ukraine does not. That is the unfortunate reality of a proxy war in which both sides are fighting for their security, but one side is threatened by a much larger group that is making use of their adversary.

That's false though. Russia is not fighting for its security. Its fighting for its dreams of empire. Ukraine being an independent country in no way threatens Russia security and NATO membership wasn't even in the cards until Russia promised it would destroy Ukraine if it didn't have the protection to prevent it. That and given nothing has happened with Russia's other neighbors being in NATO a Ukraine NATO membership wouldn't harm Russia's security either.

Russia isn't threatened by the free world. Russia is the threat to the free world, and any attempt to make cordial relations was explicitly rejected by Russia.

And Biden-- who also said Russia was going to invade, although missed the timing-- did seemingly everything he could to cause it to happen; Russia was actively seeking a diplomatic resolution to the provocation caused by NATO seeking to expand to Ukraine and Biden dismissed all that in favor of simply saying that Russia was going to invade. Very helpful, thanks, Biden.

The ''provocation'' was the EU wanting a trade deal treating Ukraine as an independent country which objectively isn't a provocation. It was Russia who did the provocation by forbidding the trade deal, forcefully revealing Ukraine's president as a puppet and then invading when that backfired. Heck Ukraine joining NATO isn't even a provocation since its an independent country that can ally with whoever it wants. Its Russia insisting it should control Ukraine's foreign policy that is the provocation, and just highlights the need for their NATO membership

 

[Seanchaidh]

That's false though. Russia is not fighting for its security.

It absolutely is.

Ukraine is the only one who has the ability to give Russia what it wants-- Donbas, and eventually more land beyond.

If you're just going to deny the reality that Russia's primary interest is its own security from Western encroachment, there is little point discussing the particulars.

 

[Hades]

It absolutely is.

It isn't though. Ukraine being an independent country in no way endangers Russia, it having trade with the EU doesn't endanger Russia and if Estonia being a NATO member on Russia's borders doesn't endangers them, then Ukraine bordering them while being in NATO doesn't endanger them either.

No one has ever been able to explain how Russia is supposedly so threatened by their neighbors being independent countries. Because ultimately its not about security. Its about Empire.