Ukraine

[Terminal Blue]

We are. And neither of us is from Russia, whose leadership felt that what was happening in (relative) peacetime was undermining its security so much that they needed to strike first now or be struck later in a less tenable position.

Neither of you is from Ukraine either, whose leadership have pledged to continue opposing the Russian invasion.

How do you imagine this ends? Do you imagine US diplomats brokering a secret agreement with the Russian government to accept a Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe? Do you imagine US diplomats in Ukraine then demanding the country's leadership capitulate immediately, despite the very real threat faced both personally by them and their families, and the obvious reality of indefinate military occupation and the ultimate destruction or balkanization of Ukraine as a state, and do you imagine Ukraine's leadership agreeing to this?

Do you imagine US diplomats giving the thumbs up for Russian intervention in Poland, Romania, the Baltic states and other countries that were once part of the Russian empire in order to satisfy the pan-Slavic Imperialist ideology of the Russian far-right? Will these countries governments be involved in the negotiations regarding their own future, or do you think it falls to the big boys in Washington and Moscow to hammer that out on their own?

Again, this is your brain on Imperialism.

 

[Silvanus]

We are. And neither of us is from Russia, whose leadership felt that what was happening in (relative) peacetime was undermining its security so much that they needed to strike first now or be struck later in a less tenable position.

They didn't. You're swallowing a pretence. Ukraine had no foreign military bases (except Russian ones), no nuclear weapons, and had never attacked Russia. The idea that Russia considered Ukraine to be an existential threat is fucking laughable.

The only way to make Russia just deciding to withdraw a solution is to convince Putin that he should. You support methods of doing so that directly harm people both in Russia and outside it and prolongs the war; a punitive approach that prioritizes western imperial interests. I support methods of doing so that minimize the duration and scope of the war and relieve the perception among Russian leadership that the west is constantly undermining the security of Russia, making long-term peace possible.

Putin will not be convinced that he should withdraw unless one of two things happen: 1) he attains his territorial ambitions, or 2) pursuing those territorial ambitions becomes too costly (either politically or financially).

Early in the war, 1) involved deposing the Ukrainian government, installation of a Russian puppet, and-- according to Putin and the state media-- destruction of the Ukrainian state. Nonetheless, we know you considered it preferable even then. Now, due to successful defence of Kyiv and North-Western Ukraine, 1) may have reduced to holding Donbas and Southern Ukraine. As we know from the occupied towns Russia has left, 1) still involves the mass slaughter of civilians in those areas; and from what Pushilin said, it may well involve invasion of Transnistria in a few years.

And even if 1) is attained, you also favour Ukraine losing any ability to defend itself from future invasion, so it also confers no security at all for Ukraine. It results in a state with no self-defensive capabilities, sitting next to a state which explicitly says its neighbour is "satanic" and should not be allowed to exist. And it also involves rewarding invasion, sending the message to invading despots the world over that smaller countries may be freely absorbed into larger countries against their will.

2) is the most realistic prospect for peace; not only is the human cost lower, but 1) doesn't even confer peace or security anyway. It encourages invasion and war.

According to you.

According to anyone paying cursory attention.

They invaded before. They illegally and secretly sponsored an insurgency for 6 years, including disguising their troops to fight Ukraine. They then instructed their military to depose the Ukrainian government, and they continue to call for the complete destruction of the Ukrainian state. And they broke every peace agreement they had. And you want their neighbour to voluntarily demilitarise, leaving itself with no ability to defend itself, and just to.... trust that these lying charlatans won't invade for a third time?

Are you drunk?

Not yet. I can just see the utter disdain dripping from your contributions to this thread, and how your primary concern from the very start has been how the crisis can be used to hurt the US.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

On a side-note, I love the irony of the guy who has insinuated that survivor testimony is faked telling me I don't give a shit about the human cost.

But don't you know? All those dead Ukrainians shot and then buried themselves, just to make Russia look bad! Stop buying the propaganda!

 

[Hades]

No.

Your individual comfort. You obviously don't give a single shit about the human cost of the war or you'd advocate the fastest way to ending it with the least escalation.

Aren't you the one who doesn't care about the human cost if you're sympathetic to the idea that Russia should get to annex more land so they can torture, murder and rape the people living there?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Neither of you is from Ukraine either, whose leadership have pledged to continue opposing the Russian invasion.

Ukraine is a satellite of the United States/NATO.

According to anyone paying cursory attention.

Absolutely not.

Aren't you the one who doesn't care about the human cost if you're sympathetic to the idea that Russia should get to annex more land so they can torture, murder and rape the people living there?

No. What is wrong with you?

 

[Hades]

No.

Yes. If you're sympathetic to the war ending on Russia's terms then you're also sympathetic to the inevitable slaughter that comes with Russian occupation. Any Ukrainian region Russia gets its hand to is going to be ethnically cleansed, as Russian state media has proudly admitted they'd do.

 

[Silvanus]

Ukraine is a satellite of the United States/NATO.

In the paranoid mindset of the zero-sum Russian military hawks. Not to anyone paying attention to what Ukraine is actually doing, which is nothing realistically threatening towards Russia at all.

Absolutely not.

So you believe Russia will ceeeeeeeertainly not invade for a third time, then, if Ukraine just surrenders its right to self-defence and trusts them? Literally why?

I seem to remember you were dead certain that Russia wouldn't invade this time, and that everyone saying they were gearing up for it was hysterical.

 

[Hawki]

So you believe Russia will ceeeeeeeertainly not invade for a third time, then, if Ukraine just surrenders its right to self-defence and trusts them? Literally why?

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me thrice, no shame, I'm dead.

 

[Agema]

They didn't. You're swallowing a pretence. Ukraine had no foreign military bases (except Russian ones), no nuclear weapons, and had never attacked Russia. The idea that Russia considered Ukraine to be an existential threat is fucking laughable.

This idea of a mortal threat to Russia is entirely based in the idea that Russia deserves its own "empire" that is intrinsically opposed to the West.

Firstly, I see no particular reason to gratify Russian imperialism. I'm far from wedded to Western imperialism either, although given the choice, I can't help but feel Western imperialism leads to a great deal less poverty, repression and autocracy than Russian.

Secondly, Russia does not actually have to oppose the West: Putin chooses to. He does so I think because he's a Cold War dinosaur with a mentality that the West is the enemy that Russia should still be a global power despite all the circumstances clearly showing that it isn't. What would it matter if Ukraine turned towards the West if Russia also decided it may as well work with rather than against the West, too? The EU spent a long time - maybe too long - playing fair with Russia and trading in the hope Russia would just get along. That Russia declined to get along is really all about Russia.

 

[Seanchaidh]

In the paranoid mindset of the zero-sum Russian military hawks. Not to anyone paying attention to what Ukraine is actually doing, which is nothing realistically threatening towards Russia at all.

They've only banned political parties that favor positive relations with Russia, attempted to join a hostile military alliance that has a record of attacking countries without provocation, accumulated ever more weapons from that hostile military alliance, and used those weapons in a campaign against people in the Donbas which has killed thousands. No big deal.

So you believe Russia will ceeeeeeeertainly not invade for a third time, then, if Ukraine just surrenders its right to self-defence and trusts them? Literally why?

In response to an incredibly divisive ethnic nationalist coup of their elected government which made it a satellite of the United States/NATO, parts of Ukraine wanted to break away. Russia helped them do so-- probably for selfish reasons, but that is to be expected. One of those conflicts continued for eight years and was part of the reason for the invasion. What do you think they're going to do, support separatists in Kiev who can't abide Lviv? According to your reasoning, the Russo-Georgian war should have been repeated at least once by now. But weirdly, Georgia still exists and neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia have enlarged. According to polls, South Ossetia wanted (and probably still does so far as I know) to join North Ossetia as part of Russia, yet that hasn't happened. Clearly, the best way to analyze Russia is as if it's a player in a Paradox game rather than a real place. All they would need to do is occupy Kiev and click "create core", it's that simple.

This idea of a mortal threat to Russia is entirely based in the idea that Russia deserves its own "empire" that is intrinsically opposed to the West.

It is based on the fact that ever more military assets are being positioned closer and closer to Russia which could then be employed in a coordinated attack against it, and the West steadfastly refusing to treat Russia with anything other than contempt. You could just consider the military and diplomatic situation. There is no need to invent your idea; it is an abstraction that does nothing to help understanding.

Yes.

No.

 

[Satinavian]

So Lawrow now managed to publicly talk about the "Jewish roots of Hitler" and bring up other antisemitic conspiration theory nonsense in another attempt to link Selenskji to Nazis.


As if Russia being fascist was not bad enough.

 

[Silvanus]

They've only banned political parties that favor positive relations with Russia, attempted to join a hostile military alliance that has a record of attacking countries without provocation, accumulated ever more weapons from that hostile military alliance, and used those weapons in a campaign against people in the Donbas which has killed thousands. No big deal.

Absolutely none of which constitutes a threat to Russia. They've banned a few political non-entities, which puts them.... several hundred rungs higher than Russia on the 'democratic' leaderboard, so it's quite ridiculous to imagine Russia considers that beyond-the-pale. They attempted to join a military alliance which constitutes pretty much the only power that could confer them security, seeing as their powerful neighbour wants to wipe them off the planet.

And they've waged war against.... a foreign-created, foreign-sponsored insurgency, through which a hostile state was sending disguised troops into Ukraine.

In response to an incredibly divisive ethnic nationalist coup of their elected government which made it a satellite of the United States/NATO, parts of Ukraine wanted to break away. Russia helped them do so-- probably for selfish reasons, but that is to be expected. One of those conflicts continued for eight years and was part of the reason for the invasion. What do you think they're going to do, support separatists in Kiev who can't abide Lviv? According to your reasoning, the Russo-Georgian war should have been repeated at least once by now. But weirdly, Georgia still exists and neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia have enlarged. According to polls, South Ossetia wanted (and probably still does so far as I know) to join North Ossetia as part of Russia, yet that hasn't happened. Clearly, the best way to analyze Russia is as if it's a player in a Paradox game rather than a real place. All they would need to do is occupy Kiev and click "create core", it's that simple.

You're still just parroting the characterisations of Euromaidan ("ethnic nationalist coup") and Ukraine ("satellite of the US/NATO") which you haven't actually established, and don't hold water. They remain hollow buzzwords for hysterical Russian propaganda, which has been dehumanising Ukrainian civilians for years now to lay the groundwork for the slaughter.

Hence state television screaming about how they're "satanists" and "nazis", and how "denazification" is the same thing as "de-Ukrainianisation".

The government of Ukraine is far less "ethnic nationalist" than Russia. Ethnic nationalist? Ukraine is more ethnically diverse than Russia, and is far more tolerant towards ethnic, religious, and other minorities than the current Russian government is. It's not even fucking close!

They deposed an elected government.... which was itself purging its opposition. Only unlike Zelensky, Yanukovych was imprisoning the primary opposition, rendering himself essentially a dictator.

The only gripe here that holds any water whatsoever is that Ukraine had attempted to join NATO, and that NATO has a shitty and aggressive track record. That's true. NATO membership also, unfortunately, represents the only source of potential security from Russian invasion in the area. As the governments of Sweden and Finland have found out, when Russia explicitly threatened them too.

You just want to believe that Russia won't do what it does every single fucking time. And if we listened to you, we'd be back here again in 5 years, as Russia starts amassing its armies around Moldova. You'll first insist we're all just being hysterical thinking they'd invade. Then they'd invade, and you'd shift to blaming the Moldovan government for something like having some right-wingers in government or accepting 10,000 dollars a few years ago. And it would be a re-run: you telling us that if we want "peace", we should just concede eastern Moldova to Russia. After all, he's only doing it because he was provoked! There's no way he'd do it again a twelfth time!

It is based on the fact that ever more military assets are being positioned closer and closer to Russia which could then be employed in a coordinated attack against it, and the West steadfastly refusing to treat Russia with anything other than contempt. You could just consider the military and diplomatic situation. There is no need to invent your idea; it is an abstraction that does nothing to help understanding.

Russia has broken every security arrangement it has made, and has made clear that diplomatic agreements with it do not confer any security whatsoever. Why would we trust them to not do what they always do?

 

[Hades]

They've only banned political parties that favor positive relations with Russia, attempted to join a hostile military alliance that has a record of attacking countries without provocation, accumulated ever more weapons from that hostile military alliance, and used those weapons in a campaign against people in the Donbas which has killed thousands. No big deal.

Ukraine is in a stage where Russia is trying to destroy and ethically cleanse them. When you're at that stage you don't accept literal traitors who wish for their country to be destroyed and ethnically cleansed.

As for them wishing to join NATO, of course they wish to join NATO when Russia has made it clear that they will never allow Ukraine to exist as an independent entity. What other option is left for Ukraine? It either align itself with the west or it becomes a Russian puppet state at best, with a brutal annexation being the more likely scenario.

Also its kinda weird that you blame NATO for attacking countries without provocation while being very okay with Russia attacking Ukraine without provocation. Say what you will about NATO's motives but Ghaddafi, Assad and Hussein really were barely sane dictators who terrorized their own populations which is something Putin has never been able to claim about the people he attacks. The only reason Putin attacks other countries is because those countries very wisely don't want to chain themselves to the complete dead end that is Putin's Russia.

 

[Agema]

It is based on the fact that ever more military assets are being positioned closer and closer to Russia which could then be employed in a coordinated attack against it, and the West steadfastly refusing to treat Russia with anything other than contempt. You could just consider the military and diplomatic situation.

And yet the obvious threat Russia poses to its neighbours goes completely without mention in that sort of thinking. Russia's neighbours want protection from Russia, because Russia (including via its phase as the USSR) has a history of invading and oppressing them, right up to the current day. And ever since the break up of the USSR, Russia has only ever reinforced that perception.

There is no need to invent your idea; it is an abstraction that does nothing to help understanding.

And your resolute parrotting of Kremlin propaganda promotes understanding, does it?

 

[EvilRoy]

Ukraine is a satellite of the United States/NATO.

No, it's not. I honestly attribute that false belief to be the result of you having never been anywhere in eastern Europe and not really understanding what the history is or what's presently going on in the region.

What is actually happening, presently and prior to the invasion, is Ukraine is trying to not be a satellite of Russia, and they're reaching out to anyone and everyone who might help them achieve that goal. It's not about the dastardly US bursting into the situation and trying to force poor weak Ukraine to work for them, it's about Ukraine having the most basic concept of pattern recognition and a vague memory of what the USSR was like and trying to escape. You can travel to former Soviet states and see how they're doing - it will really help you understand why everyone is so interested in avoiding a repeat. That's why countries like Finland are panic-applying to NATO. They know what it's like to be under Russia's thumb because they saw what happened to their list territory and they'll take any other option.

This isn't about the big bad west vs the noble betrayed Russia, it just happens that the best option to avoid getting sucked into the black hole that is Russia's future is to align with the wealthiest nearby option. Right now it's the EU, NATO and to some extent the US, but if Ukraine was located on the other side of Russia they would be begging S. Korea and Japan for help instead. Hell, they might go to China and offer to be a satellite to them instead of Russia. Those two might be allies, but China has a future and Russia doesn't, so you may as well pick the winning horse

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ukraine is a satellite of the United States/NATO.

If it was, then do you not think the US would be preparing direct intervention right now?

How exactly do you imagine the United States would control this supposed satellite? It's not like South Ossetia, which has Russian troops stationed there to this day to protect ensure compliance of the government. It's not even like the US could threaten to send troops to Ukraine, since there is neither the political will nor the capability to do so in the short term. Ukraine is not particularly economically dependent on the United States, so any economic coercion would be quite obvious.

So, how does it work? Is the Ukrainian leadership all secretly being mind controlled by the CIA using LSD?

The substance of the criticism I am making here is that you seem to be incapable of recognizing any form of agency which is not the imperialist domination of the weak by the strong. This conveniently creates in a world right out of Mussolini's wet dreams, where imperialist domination is inevitable and thus all that matters is that the "right" side is doing it. If Ukraine is already a satellite of the US, then no one has to feel any moral revulsion about Russia using military force to install a puppet government and create a satellite state. After all, it is only right and natural that the strong rule the weak.

But fortunately, the ideology of imperialism is wrong. It's not just morally wrong, it's just wrong on a basic level. People are not just territory on a map waiting to be claimed by the "great powers" on the basis of strength, and you cannot impose your will on people just by drawing the map a different colour.

You cannot rule people without possessing the means to actually control them. To think otherwise is to live in an Imperialist fantasy world.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Wait, so which one of us has phone numbers for Guterres, Zelensky, and Biden?

Your mother.

 

[Agema]

It's not about the dastardly US bursting into the situation and trying to force poor weak Ukraine to work for them, it's about Ukraine having the most basic concept of pattern recognition and a vague memory of what the USSR was like and trying to escape.

Absolutely.

Since independence, Ukrainians mostly had positive view of Russia. But Ukraine also wanted better relations and trade with the rest of the Europe. Moscow's response to this was malignly controlling: attempting to thwart Ukraine and keep it under the Russian thumb. Therein lies the breakdown in Ukrainian-Russian relations, because it reminded Ukrainians of centuries of Russian domination that was often not kind or respectful to Ukraine, and that little had changed since independence.

I read a great article from a Ukrainian, about Russians and Ukrainians being "brothers". But as he pointed out, Russia sees Ukraine as a little brother, and no-one really wants to be the little brother.

 

[Silvanus]

https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/chetvertyy_obschenacionalnyy_opros_ukraincev_v_usloviyah_voyny_12-13_marta_2022_goda.html

Just some polling about Ukrainian attitudes. Showing that those in Eastern Ukraine, including Donbas, absolutely do not want to be taken over by Russia, despite the claims that they want Russian intervention to "protect" them.

Ukrainians-- including in Donbas-- want Russia to fuck off back to its own borders.

And why on earth wouldn't they? They've seen what Russian occupation actually means, now: mass execution, torture, the murder of independent reporters, and violent installation of ethnic/ religious homogeneity.

 

[Avnger]

https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/chetvertyy_obschenacionalnyy_opros_ukraincev_v_usloviyah_voyny_12-13_marta_2022_goda.html

Just some polling about Ukrainian attitudes. Showing that those in Eastern Ukraine, including Donbas, absolutely do not want to be taken over by Russia, despite the claims that they want Russian intervention to "protect" them.

Ukrainians-- including in Donbas-- want Russia to fuck off back to its own borders.

And why on earth wouldn't they? They've seen what Russian occupation actually means, now: mass execution, torture, the murder of independent reporters, and violent installation of ethnic/ religious homogeneity.

But this doesn't say what Sean wants it to, so therefore it is CIA propaganda.