Ah, so it's very much at odds with your own proposed course of action thus far, then.
Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
You've advocated that Ukraine demilitarise next to a neighbour that has stated its intention to destroy it as a nation. You've advocated that Ukraine capitulate to Russian strategic demands.
In both cases, when reminded of those things you called for, you denied it and insinuated it was made up.
But you did. And its been quoted right back to you.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
Holding people to account for what they've said and done is imperialism or some such, doncha know?
Hell, he told us that there would never be an invasion in the first place and that the rest of us just wanted to see Russia destroyed when we mentioned the possibility. Hence why he has been working so hard ever since to portray this as a "liberation" and "anti-nazi operation".
The idea of these web sleuths "exposing" fake news stories at the Daily Star is honestly the funniest thing I have encountered this week.
I want to see a comedy series about people trying to earnestly fact check British entertainment news with no cultural context and a completely unreasonable sense of self-importance.
Last edited:
The recapture of Snake Island has allowed Ukraine to begin exports of grain via a second Danube channel (Bystre, in addition to Sulina). It adds about four outgoing ships a day to their export capacity, with a backlog of about 80 currently unable to move.
Before the war, Ukraine primarily exported via sea ports, but the Russian blockade prevents that now, forcing them to resort to the Danube channels (and rail). As we know, Russia has also taken to the theft and resale of Ukrainian grain to sympathetic countries.
Presumably, Russia hopes that global supply chain issues with food (rising prices, starvation) will encourage Western supporters to abandon support for Ukraine. Hopefully, additional ways to bypass the blockade will avert the worst of it.
So, when you post stuff like this in a thread about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I have to ask: what point is being made about that invasion, exactly? Ukrainian troops did a shitty thing, so therefore Russian invasion is justified? What's the conclusion you're intending us to draw?
Because here's an unfortunate fact: you'll be able to find comparable incidents of shitty behaviour from soldiers, police, or citizens in hundreds of countries. If you're wanting us to conclude that the country as a whole therefore doesn't deserve protection from invasion, or that invasion is justified (by a neighbour that acts far, far, far worse) then you'll need to extend that to half the world. You'll need to extend that logic to.... well, pretty much every target of American or British invasion.
Which part are you disputing?
You did undeniably call for Ukraine to demilitarise.
And Russian state media has repeatedly stated that Ukraine must be denied independence, forced to be dependent on Russia, etc.
Media is fake news. Reality is Twitter. So it has been written.
I didn't think you could top your "Russia will never invade Ukraine" lie, but here we are.
What Putin Gets Wrong About Ukraine's Statehood
Experts say Putin’s remarks are intended to justify Russian claims over Ukraine
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself and insulting the rest of us.
Ukraine moves closer to getting F-15 and F-16 fighter jets as Washington approves training programme
The US has been cautious about sending equipment to Ukraine because it is worried that American weapons may be used in Russian territory
Yesssssssssssssssssssssssss.
Except by the F-22 and the F-35. But if that’s what it takes to best it, if I may (ironically) borrow from a famous Decepticon by saying “Sometimes it is better to be known for one’s enemies”.Ukraine moves closer to getting F-15 and F-16 fighter jets as Washington approves training programme
The US has been cautious about sending equipment to Ukraine because it is worried that American weapons may be used in Russian territorywww.telegraph.co.uk
Yesssssssssssssssssssssssss.
View attachment 6594
…..Remind me again Michael Bay why Starscream couldn’t have stayed an F-15?
In Ukraine, a proxy war on the planet
As the Ukraine crisis causes global havoc, US officials won't negotiate with Russia to end the fighting -- and are even willing to "countenance" mounting hunger as a result.
mate.substack.com
western imperial war propagandists said something, guess it must be true
If Russia captures/shoots down a single 5 gen fighter, it would compromise US national security and give the US's air power edge over Russia and China. Do you know why China is able to field the J-31, and J-20 due to stealing US techs such as the airframe for the F-22 and F-35, and stealth from its F-117 shot down in Serbia. Right now Russian, and Chinese jets have less capable stealth than the US and NATO, and I would like it to stay that way for a long time at least until China's demographic collapse unless they start cloning.
Yes, you're right that the USA does not want to give away its shiniest new fighter tech anywhere it could be easily be captured and analysed.
However, as a minor point, when the F-117 was shot down ~2000 the technology behind it was already over 20 years old. Russia and China would not have gleaned any significant technology from it that they hadn't already worked out on their own or via other analysis and espionage.
Both parts. You can't seem to help but get nothing correct.
I think that a peaceful settlement should be negotiated. That is the whole of my recommendation. Anything beyond that is descriptive or speculative, not prescriptive.
You did undeniably phrase my position as "Ukraine should demilitarize", repeatedly, but that is as far as it goes. I've used the word once, in order to describe what Russia probably expects from a settlement, and even then that goes far short of "demilitarize", since the words "to at least some extent" appear immediately after it; I'm going "to empty that water bottle to at least some extent" carries a vastly different meaning than "I'm going to empty that water bottle." That has been your monthly English lesson. You're welcome.
And the reason that Ukraine would be expected to demilitarize to at least some extent is because it has been militarized quite a bit; the United States and NATO have been preparing Ukraine to fight Russia. You might think it somehow prescient, but it's hardly impressive to predict that a country that you refuse to negotiate with or listen to about its concerns over your war preparations would eventually choose to go wreck the immediate source of its consternation in response. Especially when that source of consternation has also been in civil war with much of its ethnic Russian minority as a result of their reaction to a right-wing and US-backed coup.
What Russia wants in a peace settlement is not within Ukraine's power to give, which is why Russia wants to negotiate with the United States. The United States simultaneously directs Russia to negotiate only with Ukraine for peace while also refusing to allow Ukraine to negotiate on behalf of the United States or NATO. As long as the United States maintains this posture, it will not be in Russia's interest to stop the war; the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the United States is aiming to exhaust Ukraine's ability to fight in order to damage Russia as much as possible and that it would be disappointed in outcomes which cut short the shedding of blood.
There was a coup in 2014 in which Nazi groups overthrew the government and agents of the United States picked its next leader. That government would go on to crush dissent in various ways, leading you to applaud it as "democratic" since Ukraine's oligarch class in that time also managed to poop out more than one political party to represent its interests. You have made Ukraine's human rights abuses relevant by your baffling insistence that Ukraine is a democratic country and by your incessant need to compare it to Russia in that respect.
But let us explore your premise. You would of course agree, then, that the crimes or alleged crimes of the government of Syria are irrelevant to the United States bombing that country or materially supporting its rebels; you would simply condemn the United States for its aggression because you're consistent, as you've made quite loud.
The most powerful entities bear the responsibility for maintaining or changing that environment, as they are the ones with the power to do so. You object to Russia acting like the United States does routinely in reaction to aggression by and to defend itself from the United States. I don't think it is particularly reasonable to criticize a country for doing what it deems necessary to safeguard its existence in a global context shaped by the very same countries that threaten that existence. Call what Russia is doing 'imperialism' if you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are reacting to a growing military threat on their borders from the most powerful offensive military alliance assembled in world history.
An odd framing for a war that is the result of US and NATO insistence on their absolute right to expand a hostile military alliance on Russia's border and their unwillingness to even consider negotiation about the security interests of everyone involved.
But anyway. You believe, as a socialist, that the strongest agglomeration of capitalists is on the right side of a war, that it wasn't military threatening a weaker agglomeration of capitalists, and that the strongest agglomeration of capitalists should be supported in using their economic power to try to effect an outcome that solidifies their hegemony.
It is the absolute rights of sovereign states to desire NATO membership though. And its a right of the NATO countries to accept who we want. Russia's complete refusal to recognize Ukraine as a sovereign state is what caused this war. It is also Russia which refuses to recognize the security interests of everyone involved. Russia has conquered, tortured and terrorized its neighbors twice in recent history so Russia's neighbors have every reason in the world to desire protection from Russia. Why would Poland or Ukraine desire a third brutal occupation at Russia's hands? Rather than change their image as an aggressor and trying to be a good neighbor Russia has instead double down and insisted that no country unfortunate enough to have once been conquered by Russia will ever be safe from them.
Ukraine tried not being in NATO and it didn't work, because all it got them was Russia poisoning their presidents, forbidding Ukraine from making trade deals and anexing their lands.
The west agreeing that Ukraine is a sovereign state is not a slight against Russia. Ukraine trying to ensure Russia doesn't terrorize them again is not a slight against Russia.
Nah. The corrupt president just too brazenly exposed himself as a Russian puppet and got predictably ousted when it turns out Ukrainians do not like to be vassals of Russia. Putin forced Yanukovych to self destruct. Putin could just have acknowledged that Ukraine and the European countries were sovereign countries with the right to sign trade deals, and then everything would by hunky dory.
Of course Ukraine militarized when Russia attempts to destroy it. What other course was left for Ukraine? When Ukraine militarized Russia was already illegally occupying Ukrainian territory, and fostering military juntas in other Ukrainian regions. Why shouldn't Ukraine militarize to prevent their destruction? Especially now when Putin already admitted that the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Ukraine is his end goal. ''Denazification is deukranisation '', as stated by Putin's own state media.
This seems to be a common trends in your argument. Russia violates Ukraine's sovereignty and then you blame Ukraine for reacting to Russia's provocations. Russia brutalizes Ukraine and then you blame Ukraine for taking steps to prevent their own slaughter.