That has a considerable risk of backfiring. If Putin dies, the people right next in line to take the helm are the ultra-nationalist fash in charge of the Russian State. If one of those suddenly takes control of Russia, and realizes that they’re fighting an unpopular war without having the backing of actually being Putin, it becomes far more likely that they do something extremely stupid such as launching nuclear weapons, which would be terrible for everyone.
Ah yes, and knowing that your leader was just killed would also instill fear that they would be next. Right now they all think they are untouchable, that should change
The opposite. In the face of humiliation, the world worries about Putin launching nukes. A no-name lackey that lucks into the spot after Putin gets defenestrated would double down, not pull back. They would redouble their efforts to appear strong because they feel vulnerable.
In all fairness, Liberal Shock Therapy is only employed in times of crisis. It's their job to remain crisis free and when they don't, shit like this happens.
Yeah, this is less the cavalry is here and more “we’ve committed 3 peanuts, which is better than no peanuts”. It’s probably enough to help Ukraine a bit, assuming they can agree to it and fund it as committed.
It’s unclear if this is humanitarian, non-lethal or general military aid, from the non-paywalled section of the article.
Da, I agree with this comrade. I am from Washingon oblast and hope my president Josef Biden ends the bullying of poor Russia, a proud and very strong country
Consider how many genocides have occurred since the 1948 convention and its ratification in 1951. Now consider that three have been legally recognised – and led to trials – under the convention:
Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia (and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre), and Cambodia under the 1975-9 Pol Pot regime.
Israel will have its day to atone for its behavior. They have become what they despise.
Israel will have its day to atone for its behavior.
They’ve been doing it for decades. The day of atonement will only come when the liberal ghouls currently protecting them - who believe that genocide simply means “when our enemies do something bad” - are categorically forced out of power.
I’ve never read it directly, just seen this referenced, but I remember seeing something about it in a textbook (or something? That kind of paper), and an anti nuclear friend of the family holding Ukraine up as an example back in like the 90s.
That I don’t have a link or the exact text of a treaty on hand? Yeah. I don’t.
But Ukraine doesn’t have nuclear weapons. So clearly something happened. Citing sources is a bitch on mobile, and ive never found it to convince anyone who wasn’t already receptive, so I don’t bother unless I’m on desktop.
Finally, Ukraine, as well as Belarus and Kazakhstan, obtained security assurances from the NPT depositary states in the now-infamous Budapest Memorandum signed on December 5, 1994 (see Budjeryn 2014). France and China extended similar assurances in separate statements. At the time, Ukrainian leaders knew full well that these assurances were not the legally binding guarantees they sought. This was not for the lack of trying on Ukraine’s part: negotiations on security guarantees had proceeded since mid-1992, but Ukrainians found it virtually impossible to exert from the United States the kind of security commitments it pledged to its NATO allies and strategic partners. Russia would agree to recognize Ukraine’s borders only within the borders of the Russian-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a condition Ukraine refused to accept and which was eventually lifted in the Budapest Memorandum. After the signature of the Memorandum, Ukraine’s first president Leonid Kravchuk stated: “If tomorrow Russia goes into Crimea, no one will even raise an eyebrow” (The Moscow Times 1994).
So they got promises but everyone knew how empty and bullshit they were at the time?
I still say the right thing to do is keep the promise yo do the good thing and protect the people who made the world overall safer by making themselves more vulnerable.
If someone invaded your country, would you still have the same opinion? If Trump invaded your country(assuming you are not an american), would you still say “why are we spending billions to fight Trump, when we could have spent them on education and housing?”.
If my country was a Nazi shithole then I’d have the same opinion yes. If my country was one of the most corrupt states in the world and run by a puppet fascist government of the USA, then yes, I’d have the same opinion. if my country’s puppet rulers did everything they could to provoke an invasion and then cry about it then I wouldn’t have any sympathy.
USA has active military bases with nukes pretty much all over europe, technically they already invaded my country. There’s hundreds of USA military planes alone flying over europe daily. If russia, china or anyone else would give 100 billions to any corrupted fascist government in europe that would still be a bad thing because ultimately it wouldn’t change anything for people.
Do people in your country oppose those bases? Do you have democracy? If the majority of people opposed those bases, they could vote for some other government. Do you understand the difference between an invasion and hosting allied troops?
If a country elects a “fascist” government and then gets invaded, do they not deserve help? So i assume you also supported the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam? They didnt even have democracy there, unlike Ukraine.
So your argument is that since the public in these countries is brainwashed, they arent capable for voting for their leadership, therefore there is no democracy, only the illusion of democracy. Thus an invasion and imposing a new government through violence, maybe one that aligns better with your worldview, is an acceptable thing?
I dont know, i think this is a very slippery slope. I think brainwashed people deserved to be ruled by whoever they vote, thats what democracy is and has always been. Even in ancient Athens, you had demagogues and sophists(even if we ignore that women and slaves couldnt vote). And money could get you a better sophist, to teach you how to debate and manipulate people.
So is democracy a fake system that can never be achieved? And your alternative suggestion is what?
Thats like having your house on fire and saying “this is fine” meme. Do you think that war is never an option? That giving up and letting invaders take what they want is preferable because it “reduces” human suffering?
Would you advocate the same during WW2 and Germany/Italy’s invasions? Should the countries that got invaded not resist and should the UK/US not help those countries? Imagine if you were an american in WW2 and your government was giving hundreds of billions worth of equipment to the russians, in order for Russia to fight the nazis. Would you still say “why are we sending hundreds of billions to the corrupt nation of Russia, when that money could have been used in America instead”?
The isolationist rhetoric benefits the invaders, who can easily take out individual countries(or regions of countries), one piece at a time, while placating the rest.
Militarism is bad, thats why Europe had a shitty military ever since the end of the Cold War. Because every euro spent on tanks and planes, is a euro that isnt spent on healthcare and education. Europe could finally benefit from the peace dividend.
And then Russia decided one day to walk in and grab parts of Ukraine(Crimea and parts of Donbas). That started some alarms but Europe kept sleepwalking. Surely Putin wont go any further. But just like Hitler who conquered Czechoslovakia(and didnt stop there), Putin decided “why the hell dont i take the entirety of Ukraine, it isnt as if anyone will stop me, those european soycucks dont have the balls to do anything but write stern letters”.
And he almost succeeded. So after 3 decades of having basically 0 investment in military, Europe is now rushing to catch up. Because it doesnt matter how peaceful you are, it is basic game theory. If you are military weakened enough, at some point, someone, somewhere will come to power who will want to take advantage of that “weakness”.
Class warfare is irrelevant if people are not class conscious enough to stop war from both sides. Ok, i will use my magic wand and make everyone in Europe class conscious. But if russians arent class conscious enough to refuse the orders to invade a country, someone will need to stop them.
Again, imagine using the same arguments against nazi Germany. Imagine pleading german soldiers to not invade you and that class warfare is the real war. Do you think that would work?
Some people only respect power and think words are a sign of weakness.
There havent been wars in Europe, unlike literally any other period in history, for almost 80 years. Dont you think that is an impressive achievement? An achievement that the invasion of Ukraine has endangered? How would you feel if you were a baltic state like Latvia? A country that has been very prosperous since the end of the Cold War?
What does your rhetoric offer to a latvian? What tangible measures should someone in Latvia take, in order to protect their way of living from someone like Russia? Should they just ignore it and focus on class warfare? What class warfare currently exists within Russia? Or can exist within an authoritarian state like Russia? Do you think Russia is communist? Or wants to become communist?
I am trying to understand, what is your argument. What do you suggest the people of a country do when some other country invades them. Even if you think that countries are obsolete artificial constructs that need to be demolished, you surely understand there is a difference when a leader from another country takes over your country. Do you think Putin is a communist?
I mentioned the yugoslav wars in the post before that. The argument still stands, Europe has been mostly peaceful for the first time ever. Do you intend to actually answer any of the points of my post?
Europe has been involved in hundreds of wars in the past decades and they have spend billions on wars. That many of these wars are being fought somewhere else and not within europe borders should make you think what these wars are actually about and how war billions are being spent.
One is not relevant to the other. The billions that Europe is spending is orders of magnitude less than they did for most of european history.
Do you think that Europe should not fight against ISIS? Are you referring to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions? French interventions in Africa? Not all wars are the same. Take a stance instead of using vague expressions.
The fact that wars have mostly stopped in Europe is something worth celebrating and maintaining. And Russia is threatening the status quo in the european continent.
Ever wonder why isis exist in the first place and why they are at war with the west?
You don’t do peace by arming up and waging war against others. None of EU governments want peace anyway, war is a business and a tool for rulers to get more power and wealth.
ISIS exists because Saddam was toppled, replaced by, a mostly shia government and the old iraqi military was disbanded. That created a power vacuum and left a lot of military trained guys unemployed, who felt betrayed. They basically said “fuck this world order, we will make our own, with blackjack jihad and hookers sharia law”.
Over time, they became more and more religious radicals, split off Al Qaeda and now they are fighting everyone everywhere. ISIS-K(the one in Afghanistan) seems to be the main one organizing terrorist attacks now. They are fighting the Taliban, Iran and Pakistan too. Most of ISIS’ victims are muslims, sometimes shia but often sunni(but not the right sunni).
They are a very attractive proposition for poor and desperate people around the world, who feel they got screwed. They are basically resentment manifest.
Now you might say “thats because of western imperialism” and you wouldnt be wrong. But do you know what was the most common ethnicity for foreign ISIS fighters? Russian. And no, it wasnt random russians fighting against american imperialism, it was muslim russians who simply could not fight in Russia’s Dagestan and Chechnya. Russia bombed the shit out of ISIS too, partially because of this reason.
While understanding what lead us to our current situation is important, ultimately we must face the present. Whether a military solution is the best way, is debatable. But it is easier to convince your parliament to spend x amounts of money on your own military, rather than use that funds on developing other countries.
It is unfortunate that education is not your strong point. I do enjoy the entertainment though and will go get more popcorn for the show. Pfft just go on.
I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty? If they didn’t want to be part of Russia, then they should have just said so. Has Velinsky tried talking to the justly elected Putin? This 100 billion could be spent on rebuilding all the housing in Ukrane that was blown up by Russia DEFENDING its self from the Ukrainian troops invading Ukraine. This could be 100 billion dollars in food aid spread around the world in the form of Ukrainian grain shipments that have been stalled or sunk, but Ukraine has CHOSEN to stop shipping their grain by blocking their own barges and trucks.this could have been 100 billion dollars in CLEAN oil that Russia could have been exporting to help the world with energy, but instead will have to rebuild because the plants keep blowing up. If only there was a solution that would let the world move on and spend their money on better things. If only we would just give in to Russia and let them take what they want at the expense of others- then the world would be a better place.
I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty?
Sending 100 billions to the corrupted government of a military state under martial law where no man between 18 and 60 can leave it’s funding whatever is the opposite of democracy.
Seem like ukrainian government choose indeed something when they decided to play international war games. Not that this justify anything but keep in mind where these billions are going to.
Every dollar that goes to funding nazis in Ukraine for a war they have no chance of winning is a dollar that can’t go towards funding genocide in the middle east. Of course that money should be going into public services instead, but as if they are ever going to allow that to happen.
EDIT: NATO nazis were fast to pounce on this one, HA!
That condescending tone of yours paints the whole Ukraine with a nazi brush. While I believe it does reach azov battalion, the vast majority of Ukrainian army and goverment are not nazis, despite what RT might call them. In fact, I think funding to Ukraine should Increase so it can finally defeat Russia. Not only it would likely destabilize russian goverment, which consists of oil billionaires with a past of crime, corrupt bootlickers and, honestly, unapologetic nazis. But it also would disrupt russian funding for alt-right groups all over the world, which would be a major win against nazism.
That would have been a good point when the war was just started going, but we know better than that now. If you can’t see what Ukraine was all about at this point than i’m afraid there’s nothing I can say to change your mind.
The only thing that changed since the start is western faith in Ukrainian victory. I doubt it too. Perhaps something inside Russia has to happen, otherwise the human cost would be too great. NATO intervention could turn it around, but it would be very risky, I don’t think it would happen.
As for the goverments from my point of view, Ukrainian goverment seems to be more impatient and anixious meanwhile the Russian goverment is getting more shameless and ruthless. I haven’t seen any major revelations about either one that would somehow prove that Ukrainian gov are nazis and Russia is a better option.
The main reason I want Ukraine to win is not my belief that countries deserve to be independent and not have their land taken away by nearby imperialist powers. I do believe that, but the main reason is I want the current russian goverment to weaken and possibly depose Putin and reject imperialist ideas, to stop the money from crippled russian economy from going to war instead of public services. That would lay the ground work for further reforms, maybe finally make russia free. It would not be easy, but it is the best realistic option.
I fear if Russia wins it would be more isolated and more tyranical than ever, akin to Iran or North Korea. The cult of war will completely take over society and individual freedoms will be lost. And the economy will not bear for much longer, that is for sure.
Living in Russia is terrible and I will probably emigrate to another country soon. Luckly my english skills are good enough.
What I fear most besides staying in Russia is that I will grow old and never see it prosper.
Yeah I am being lied to. I have been fed lies my whole life. I was told that Russia is the most just and fair country. That every war waged was in self defence and all the people within its borders joined willingly and were happy.
But I was able to see through it. I have learnd that all territorial expansion was fueled by ruthless wars and genocides. Russian expanse to the east is no better than USA expansion to the west displacing and subjigating all people who lived there. I have learned of the terrible fates of people who lived here. Not only of strangers, but also those in my family tree who lived through the harshest times of oppression during USSR.
But most importantly I learned that countries don’t have a right to own other countries. It is the definition of imperialism after all.
And Ukraine is perhaps one of the most deserving countries to exist. Ukrainians have fought for so long to gain sovereignty and indepndence, but were betrayed. First thrown under the bus by Russian empire, then taken over by USSR during the revolution. And now Russia is trying to subjigate Ukraine again. I can only hope that this time this senseless conquest will fail.
then taken over by USSR during the revolution. And now Russia is trying to subjigate Ukraine again. I can only hope that this time this senseless conquest will fail.
Wow, you’re right; you really have been lied to, especially about history.
Also, don’t whine about the USSR. You got what you wanted; it was forcefully destroyed, and now you’re reaping the consequences.
Leave it to the ignorant westeners to teach other people their own history. Surely you know better.
Also, the USSR crumbled on its own. Its flawed economic system could not bear all the millitary spending. And we are all better for it. Now its remains are poisoning todays Russia, but it will crumble as well, sooner or later.
What needed the spending? Nothing but the delusions of Russian ruling elites. Modern Russia in not much different from the USSR, even in ideology. At least they stopped pretending to be communists.
But I am not here to teach history to a wall. This thread is overdue for an end, just as my waking day is overdue for a good night of sleep. If you are serious about decolonisation and anti imperialism you should learn about the struggles of all the people instead of choosing which global hegemony to bend your knee to. That’s my message.
Not certain if trolling or just unfamiliar, but Republicans politicians are doing what they can to not get in Russia’s way or doing things that benefit Russia. For instance, Republicans aren’t really supporting providing additional funding to Ukraine. Republicans have also used an FBI informant who was bribed by Russia as evidence to try to impeach Joe Biden.
I dont support Russia, but am vehemently against aid to Ukraine for a variety of reasons. American should have never been involved in any of it, just like with Isreal.
As it is now, Russia controlling as much oil as they do gives them power over us, them controlling Ukraine will also help them affect food prices as well as just encouraging them to continue to attack their enemies. Europe has significant reason to jump to prevent Russia’s advancement, European countries being our allies is another reason to stop Russia’s push into Europe.
Sorry, but these are just propaganda talking points. Russia has very little power over the western nations, and they were never going to invade the rest of Europe. The whole war was completely avoidable, but that is what the government and media will conveniently not mention. The whole narrative is an objective pile of bullshit.
Unless you have any kind of proof that this is all a smokescreen and propaganda for a more nefarious plot, we’re going to continue to listen to the unanimous Western sources including live on the ground video footage and first hand accounts that Russia is illegally invading Ukraine. But also, we’re 2 years into this war. You’re way too late to be on Lemmy peddling your misinformation.
Power over Western nations may have been a strong word, but they do have influence. We don’t know their plan, but we can look at past trends: they’ve attacked Georgia, they’ve attacked and controlled Crimea, they’re attacking and controlling parts of Ukraine. Not fighting Russia hasn’t stopped Russia, so with Russia now at war with Ukraine, stopping them there seems like a necessity. Maybe now they’ll learn that imperialism is dead, and looked badly on by other nations. They shouldn’t be rewarded for this bad behavior against our allies.
You’re right, the war could have been avoided, but Russia decided not to avoid war. All they need to do is leave ukraine and it will stop, but they won’t.
Russia invaded Ukraine on false pretexts with the intent to use military action to overthrow a democratically elected government after their last attempt at coup/puppet government failed when their patsy fled the country after his failed attempt.
After the US failed to act in 2014 despite evidence of Russia starting proxy wars against Ukraine and annexing land illegally, and further muddied by Trump’s attempts to withhold defense aid packages he was obligated by law to deliver.
So yes, US involvement has been justified and Ukraine has not only been happy for the assistance but requested more to ensure their freedom and prosperity doesn’t vanish tomorrow with Putin’s intent to rape the entire country.
How is the US justified to meddle in the politics of countries on the other side of the planet? What would the US do if china was giving money to Mexico or Cuba?
What would be the problem with China giving money to Cuba and Mexico?
The problem is that the US would not allow it. Every country is going to ask for aid or alliance, why does that mean that we should help or join in alliance with them?
Cuba was/is under Russian control not China. China and Russia were in a cold war for decades. The Soviet Union did give money to Cuba. The only complaint the US had was when Soviets installed missiles in Cuba.
Cuba was completely supported by the Soviet Union with billions in economic aid and hundreds of millions in military aid every year.
“From 1976 to 1980, the Soviets invested US$1.7 billion on the construction and remodeling of Cuban factories and industry. Between 1981 and 1984 Cuba also received approximately US$750 million a year in Soviet military assistance.”
The US freaked out after the USSR gave Cuba money AND installed missiles there. It sure must be the money that freaked the US out, it can’t possibly be the missiles pointed directly at he US, that wouldn’t make any sense.
So when Russia put missles on our doorstep it was okay to risk nuclear war, but when the US and NATO do the same thing, its totally cool becuase its us doing it?
The Soviets were installing long range nuclear missiles. The US won’t even give long range conventional weapons.
Given that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine is free to acquire/develop nuclear weapons.
But all that is besides the point that you claimed the US would freak out if Soviets gave Cuba money. But Soviets continued giving money until the Soviet Union dissolved. Even under Reagan, there was no freak out.
The reason I bring it up is that the Soviet Union was fooling around with our neighbor and it made us uneasy at best, and we have been fooling around with all kinds of countries in their neighborhood and it feels threatening to them too. The war is happened because the US (and NATO) keep doing things that Russia finds threatening. And we just last week instigate war even more by saying Ukraine will join nato. If anyone says Biden is a good president we can point to that and how he is pushing us into WW3.
Russia has a ‘history’* of invading their neighbours and keeping them under their thumb. This is still continuing to this day with the most obvious example being Ukraine. Eastern Europe knows this and sought NATO protections. Ukraine didn’t and look at what situation they’re in now.
I want to ask you what your solution would be, and how the west should act in your eyes in order to adequately protect themselves from Russia. And how Ukraine should defend themselves.
*in quotation marks 'cause they’re still doing it.
has a ‘history’* of invading their neighbours and keeping them under their thumb
If you swap out America with Russia its actually more applicable. If you look at the invastions they have done in the last two decades they have all been what they have percieved as being for their protection. The defense should be for NATO to not stop antagonizing russia.
Listen, I know the US has done plenty of shitty things and I am not trying to defend it. What I am saying is that their aid to Ukraine is entirely justified, because it helps Ukraine regain their soveieignty back from the aggressor.
Can you please be a little more presize with NATO antagonizing Russia, what should they have done differently?
And lastly: since you haven’t answered this question I am going to ask it again: What should Ukraine do, in your eyes, to protect themselves from Russia?
I dont have a problem with Ukraine defending themselves, I have a problem with the US being involved in a proxy war in a country most people in the US couldnt point to it on a map.
To not antagonize russia NATO shouldnt have kept taking in countries to the east, and should have welcomed russia in when it asked. We should have actually listened to russia and not done the things that we knew would aggravate russia.
People that just believe the narrative they are told via the media and government. These are people that say the Ukraine war was “Unprovoked”, the lockdowns worked, and Trump is orange hitler.
You can learn from books or podcasts or your neighbor or whoever. Its easier to be on the internet and insult strangers than to do the hard work of improving yourself. I really recommend you do start down that path because it will make you happier and healthier.
I have hope for you, I think you can change, and if you wanted a real conversation it would not be a waste of my time, I just dont think you want that at this time.
Yeah that’s because it’s a martial art… I guess you’re not familiar with how athletics work but you can’t physically hurt yourself with philosophy so you actually can read ahead if you want.
I thought you were all the way down the rabbit hole- Peterson is the best you’ve got?
Alright, are you ready for the secret one no tells you about? Just make sure you dont share this with anyone as we want to keep it a secret. Its this new book called “The Bible”, it actually has all the things in it but the problem is people dont actually read it.
I meant maybe I know what your interpretation of blasphemy is. But if I were you I would focus on what you are doing that is good or bad not people on the internet.
I know you’d ‘bet’ the bible was written by your imaginary friend so that tells me a lot about what you’re willing to believe without any substantiation.
Gotcha, still insulting people on the internet, the one thing you should realize is that the people that it harms are weak and you shouldnt harm them, and the people that it doesnt harm doesnt impact them at all. I wish for you that you will get well, and turn your life around.
I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that’s a fair question.
You also seem to be against US involvement by virtue of it being a US involvement, even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor. What is wrong with that?
If I read this correctly, you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
The best defense was to negotiate with russia. The world is not perfect, in war there is almost never a good solution. Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.
even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor.
This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.
you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.
Considering how well Russia followed the Budapest memorandum, I don’t think this is the right course of action.
“Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.”
Any source or explanation as to why the route of aiding Ukraine leads to a higher risk of a nuclear war or WW3 would be appreciated.
“This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.”
A source or explanation is needed once again.
“Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.”
Wasn’t there a rule that countries need to resolve their conflicts before entering NATO? Russia had one: the Chechen wars. The first Chechen war started in 1994 [1]. Between German unification and the first Chechen war, a grand total of ZERO countries joined NATO [2]. This means that Russia was already fighting before NATO let in countries of the former eastern bloc. Not a good look for an aspiring member, is it?
“I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that’s a fair question.”
Will you answer this question this time around? Or will you ignore it again?
You dont think a proxy war with the country with the most nuclear weapons risks anything?
You gotta stop an agressor at some point, Russia is most likely not going to stop at Ukraine if Putin gets away with it. Now the west has an opportunity to make Russia’s imperial ambitions more difficult without interfering directly. This, to me, is the least risky option.
As far as WW3, we are pushing together the Brics countries.
Gotta ask for a source or explanation again.
If the US had rejected Ukraines request to join NATO, this war would not be happening.
First of all, Ukraine wasn’t a part of NATO and considering that Russia already violated their territorial integrity before, Ukraine would have a hard time joining NATO.
Second of all, Ukrainian support for joining NATO was very low, until Russia annexed Crimea, after that happened Ukraine began actively trying to join NATO.[1] So Russia brought this onto themselves.
And how do you know how Russia would have acted, had things gone differently?
There is no answer, they cant defend themselves, they could never win. Giving them money and offering alliance has only made it worse.
By the sanctions we did in Russia, it has cause the foreign countries to start going off the petro dollar and they are able to group together under different currencies.
What you will find if you listen to anyone that knows the history of the region is that all along NATO and the US were directly involved in all of the countires that russia invaded. If NATO had not gotten involved, I dont believe russia would have invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, or invaded Ukraine. If we didnt stick our nose into every country around the world, the war would not be happening right now.
By the sanctions we did in Russia, it has cause the foreign countries to start going off the petro dollar and they are able to group together under different currencies.
The link to WW3 is missing. Since you were talking about BRICS here is something I’d like to add: India also takes part in a quadrilateral organisation with the US. [1] So could it just be that India is being neutral and playing both sides?
What you will find if you listen to anyone that knows the history of the region is that all along NATO and the US were directly involved in all of the countires that russia invaded.
Source please.
If we didnt stick our nose into every country around the world, the war would not be happening right now.
I don’t think either of us can truly know how Russia would have acted had thins gone differently. But if Soviet history is anything to go by, it is not good.
You gave no answer as to why Ukraine’s defense is futile.
I dont know what countries for certain but it would be something like- China, Russia, Iran, the rest of the muslim world, etc vs NATO, Israel, etc. We are directly pushing all of those countries together.
I dont know what countries for certain but it would be something like- China, Russia, Iran, the rest of the muslim world, etc vs NATO, Israel, etc. We are directly pushing all of those countries together.
Source please. Are they all willing to fight against the US in WW3? I can imagine Iran and their allies doing so, but the rest as well?
Ukraines defense is futile because they dont have enough population, and it is showing in the median soldier age being in the 40s.
A lot of factors play a role in Ukraines chances of victory, so you saying that Ukraine can’t win because population is really a weak argument. And history doesn’t allign woth this point either, take the first Chechen war, or the time that The USSR the US, invaded Afghanistan
I find it quite unteresting that you on the one hand argue that Ukraine has the right to defend themselves and shouldn’t surrender, and on the other hand that Ukraine is going to lose anyway. How does that work?
China says they own Tawain and have been angry with the west for a very long time; Russia has been aggrivated by the US for 80 years. This is a known problem
The US fully took over Afghanistan government, and that is the goal of Russia… Ukraine can fight if they wish, but they dont, the oligarchs want them to fight, and they will lose.
Because they do the right thing this time. What is wrong with helping a country defend itself from an agressor? I know the US does and has done shitty things, that does not mean that everything the US does is bad.
I remember this episode of DS9. The genetically enhanced humans do the math and figure out by surrendering to the Dominion the Federation would save billions of lives not fighting a war they never had a hope of winning.
But, spoilers, the Federation did win the war in the end. And the genetically enhanced super smart humans who mathematically proved surrender and submission was the best strategy were kept locked up like weird little freaks.
Ukraine has managed to do a lot in this war: they have repelled Russia’s attack on Kyiv, despite expectations and even pulled of two succesful counteroffensives. (I am talking about Charkiw and Kherson.) I know Ukraine is in a bad spot but that doesn’t mean that it’s over for them.
If they don’t want to negotiate and would rather fight, then why should we tell them they shouldn’t and instead should negotiate with the agressor? And why should we believe that Russia won’t violate such a deal? Their track-record isn’t great in this regard.
Wikipedia says that the Ukrainian armed forces consists of 1000000 armed personell. Compared to Russia’s 1320000. I don’t know the relevancy of this, but hey, I answered your question, now you answer mine.
And all those victories came at a cost and that cost being that their average soldier is in their 40s, and they had to increase their draft. We never know for certain the outcome of a peace deal, but reason russia invaded is well known, and if the west had not gotten involved in the situation the war would have never started, and they dont actually want to invade Ukraine.
My question was not how big their armies are, it was how many people are CONSCIRPTED in their army? Meaning how many war slaves are they using?
Victories coming at a cost is not something new and info on how severe they are is hard to come by due to the fog of war. So unless you have a decent source, this point is kind of useless.
What good reason does Russia have for it’s full scale invasion?
And next: I don’t know why I should be the one looking up how many conscripts Ukraine has when it is your argument. Why don’t you look it up yourself?
And what should the west do to protect themselves form Russian aggression in your eyes? If this is not the right way to do it.
So the choice is to get conscripted right now for an ongoing war or to avoid the draft for now and risk being drafted sometime in the future for a war that most likely would never happen? There’s no choice for sane person. And Ukrainians are much clever than you tend to think, that’s why they are evading draft en masse: nytimes.com/…/ukraine-conscription-mobilization-b…
You think Putin will stop at Ukraine and Georgia? You were so confident that Biden was trying to make a distraction from domestic issues two years ago, right before the tanks rolled across the border.
Literally the entire GOP with standouts like Greene going far as to say we should cut all aid to Ukraine and shift to helping Russia. The entire right wing of our government took the red too literally and jumped in bed with former Soviet agents for a pocket full of rubles.
False equivalence. Literally Ukraine would have been better off if the west had not given them any money at all. The war would have been over and Ukraine would have more territory and more living people. And that doesnt even get into if the war was entirely preventable to start with. Ukraine is about to lose the war and all you guys want to do is give them more money so more ukrainians die.
Should every country just surrender to aggressors, only those that require aid to defend themselves or some other criteria? This seems like a call for any small state to just give up when a conqueror is at their door ready to oppress them, is that what you believe?
No they shouldnt surrender, but should the US fund every war, including the ones we passively or actively instigate? Should we give money to a country to fight when it makes their situation worse, and just end up with more dead people?
Good points, let’s change Ukraine to Ireland and Russia to the British Empire and see if we still think they’re good points.
… Oh, oh god…
It seems we’ve BOTH made a huge mistake and inadvertently thought imperialism is good just because it had a Russian accent. How embarrassing for the both of us.
I’m glad we’ve both learned from this horrible accident and will no longer support imperial ambitions just because it’s being done by a non-US ally.
Literally Ukraine would have been better off if the west had not given them any money at all. The war would have been over and Ukraine would have more territory and more living people. And that doesnt even get into if the war was entirely preventable to start with.
If Ukraine would just surrender this would all be over. If Ukraine hadn’t forced Russia to invade then none of this would have ever happened. Ukraine would benefit from becoming part of Russia by having more territory and a larger population. How else can your comment be construed?
That is obviously not support for russian imperialism, its support in not having ukrainians dying.
If only people wouldn’t resist my attempts to kill and steal from them. That’s the real issue. If they just peacefully surrendered and let me have my way than they would be fine, better off than before even!
And then you made a bunch of lame strawman arguments. Nice work!
I’ve been kind enough to provide quotes from you and break down exactly how they support Russian fascist imperialism. Why can’t you be kind enough to do the same with me?
The reason why: what you are saying is nonsense and you can’t defend it, only retreat to a position of ‘I want to save lives by accepting surrender’.
This is because you are a coward, afraid to publicly state your actual position because you know how bad it looks and you know you’ll get your ass beat then spend the next few days sulking, trying to think of why you aren’t actually a bad person with silly opinions.
How would Ukraine have more territory when the reason Putin said he needed to invade was to take territory away from Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians?
Because they would have had a peace deal back in 2022, and that peace deal was with more territory than Ukraine currently has, and Ukraine was also in a better negotiating position.
Any maps did not include Russian claims to eastern Ukraine because that wasn’t part of the peace plan. Ukraine was to disarm and then Russia would decide how much of Eastern Ukraine was taken.
I already linked the article.
Furthermore, Russia had already violated the 1994 non aggression agreement
And I linked proof that what you remember is wrong.
“The future of Ukraine’s east, part of which was occupied by Russia in 2014, was not included in the draft, leaving the issue for a personal discussion between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who never held a meeting.”
Your only proof is a claim that you think you saw something. I proved with sources that the territory of Eastern Ukraine couldn’t be on any peace plan map because Putin himself said it was undecided until after Ukraine disarms.
I know NATO doesn’t have unlimited resources, but given that this is an explicit proxy war with Russia, doesn’t $100bn seem kind of paltry? That makes it appear that they’re planning on continuing cash infusions from the US.
EDIT: I’m saying that the US can’t be relied on to continue supporting the war effort because the GOP in particular has become increasingly opposed to funding it.
Maybe a little. The US had a bill for providing 60bn so 100bn is quite a bit more, though maybe not significantly considering all the countries involved.
It’d be so much better for everyone if we just took all of the funding going to Israel and redirected it to Ukraine. And then we nuke Israel or smthn idk
might be chump change for you but likely its tied to Ukraine’s conceivable ability to pay down such debt. although in reality it would likely be mostly written off when things quiet down… especially since the moneys would be mostly spent on NATO military goods.
Well IIRC, for America, the funding money amount for Ukraine is usually just an estimate of the worth of already manufactured goods, mainly of weapons that we have stored that we weren’t gonna use in the first place, and only a small portion of the dollar amount is stuff like clothes, food, etc. which would be seen as an actual cost to the US. We have sent Bradleys and M1 Abrams (and some European countries sent Leopard 2A4s? and Leclercs I think), but I’m pretty sure they weren’t in use by the military and weren’t planned to be upgraded for use any time soon (but I’m just guessing, I can’t Google it rn, I may just be completely wrong on that).
This thing has already been going on for 2 years and Russia isn’t pulling out. It’s a war of attrition. First side to blink loses. NATO cannot lose Ukraine to Russia. Period.
I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’, but it’s not hard to imagine it as a some kind of response to NATO’s continued expansion around them.
NATO hasn’t been in any direct operations against Russia but they have been involved in the ME where they have been active.
I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.
I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’
I think the line might be “in response to” or similar, but it’s parroted by tankies and russophiles.
NATO’s continued expansion around them.
Can we imagine any reasons why Russia’s neighbors might want to join a defensive pact to protect against Russia? No? Oh well, must be US imperialism then.
I’m not saying there isn’t reason for those countries to want to joint an alliance against their imperialist neighbor, but honestly it’s kinda hard not to see how NATO’s influence has been abused for purposes other than defense.
Russia wanted to join NATO under Clinton. NATO said no because a nation has to be stable and not in a conflict to join. Russia had a conflict in Chechnya.
(_see where I’m going _)
Ukraine wanted to join NATO. But if Russia invaded, they can’t join.
Oh, you want me to make a moral judgement. Okay. NATO and Putin are to blame. NATO shouldn’t have expanded, and Putin should let his neighbors have sovereignty without meddling in their governments.
No need to be rude. Your question was not specific. NATO knew that Russia was concerned about NATO expansion, they did it anyway. Many saw this coming:
Even that first stage provoked Russian opposition and anger. In her memoir, Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, concedes that “[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.” Source
Per the article, “Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone‐deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐century deserves a large share as well.”
I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.
The “Cuban” missile crisis was started by USA putting nukes in Turkey.
Well yea, the US has had imperial ambitions since its founding, but they definitely doubled down when their primary adversary set up camp in their backyard
I am very confused by your comment. Are you saying Putin never said that, or are you saying he was lying?
From Putin’s actual mouth:
ON DECISION TO LAUNCH ‘SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION’
“We saw military infrastructure being ramped up, hundreds of military advisers working and regular deliveries of modern weapons from NATO. (The level of) danger was increasing every day. Russia preventively rebuffed the aggressor. It was necessary, timely and … right. The decision of a sovereign, strong, independent country.”
Just to be clear, he definitely said that, but he was definitely lying.
The Baltic states joined in 2004. Long before Putin was made into a pariah, and Russia was still seen as part of the West and publicly aspiring to join NATO
Add comment