this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2022
0 points (50.0% liked)
Memes
45636 readers
1726 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Stop fighting will definitely result into no Ukraine being left. I don't think this is a viable alternative.
Well the future is not looking bright for Ukraine but I'll hope there will be peace sooner than later. It'll probably end up in a frozen war. But you can not expect the Ukraine to not defend it's county just because the chance are higher that it looses. Still no justification of the Russian aggression.
Let's see. Current events suggests otherwise. But no one knows for sure.
If Ukraine agreed to remain neutral and respect Minsk protocol then it would have lost no territory.
If Ukraine negotiated peace in April then it would have lost less territory than Russia annex this week.
The longer this war goes on the more territory Ukraine will lose, and the worse position it will be in both militarily and economically. These are the basic facts of the situation.
Russia is methodically grinding down Ukrainian military and eventually it will break. At that point Russia will install a friendly government there. That is the most likely outcome of this situation.
The only thing the regime in Ukraine is defending is American interest in weakening Russia and Europe.
The fact that Ukraine fought a civil war for eight years against the Russian speaking population in the east instead of implementing Minsk agreements is the justification for Russia intervening.
Current events do not suggest otherwise. Russia chose to cede some territory by pulling troops back while they build up their 300k reserves. Ukraine did not defeat Russian army or the LPR and DPR militias in combat to gain the territory they captured. The balance of power has not changed. This is a war of attrition where Ukrainian army is being ground down.
This is wishful thinking. This war will grind to a halt some time in the future, like so many other wars do as well. There is no clear "winner"
What about all the lives of the Ukrainian civilization? What about the right to be a sovereign state. Do you really think Ukraine is just fighting because the US said so? How stupid.
The framing ... it sounds like Ukraine was starting the fight. AFAIK it was the rebel groups in the east who started the civil war. At the very least both were fighting and both sides were violating the Minsk agreements / the ceasefire.
You keep repeating and cherry picking details supporting the Russian narrative. Please for once take other perspectives into consideration. Your current comments just sound like well educated and good formulated propaganda.
It's not, it's the reality of the situation and if you learn to parse western media and Pentagon briefings then you'll see that even they are reporting this. There absolutely is a clear winner here. Ukraine started in the best position possible to stop Russia. They since lost most of their machinery and much of the troops they had. The west is not able to resupply them at the rate they are losing what they have.
This channel does a very good job breaking these things down using western sources https://www.youtube.com/c/TheNewAtlas/videos
Perhaps Ukraine should've thought of that when they refused to respect Minsk protocols, refused to stay neutral, and continued to try to get into NATO. The reality is that there is no scenario where Russia will tolerate nukes on their doorstep.
Ukrainian right wing regime absolutely started the fight. The rebel groups in the east started fighting back against ethnic cleansing by the regime the west installed via a coup in 2014.
No, both sides were not violating Minsk agreements. Ukrainian government was doing that with the backing from the west.
This isn't Russian narrative. This is what plenty of western experts have been saying for decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Propaganda is ignoring decades of history and pretending that Russia just decided to attack Ukraine out of the blue because they're evil orcs who can't be reasoned with.
Everything you wrote applies to the west in equal parts. The choice isn't between Ukraine being neutral or being under Russian influence. It's whether Ukraine is in western or Russian sphere of influence. The west has meddled in Ukrainian politics far more aggressively than Russia ever had. Nuland is literally on record picking the government after 2014 coup.
You actively support NATO which is a genocidal alliance responsible for deaths of millions of people. You have no moral high ground here.
Unlike you, I never claimed any high ground here. I just want to live in a world that's not being driven towards a nuclear holocaust by ideologues such as yourself.
And more bleating about justifications and morals since that's all you know. I frankly don't give a shit about any of that. There are practical concrete steps that can be taken to avoid a nuclear holocaust, and these steps are at odds with your ideological position.
The whole idea that the westerners are driving the world towards nuclear holocaust is a basic fact of reality. NATO expansion east is the root cause of the conflict in Ukraine. NATO support for Ukraine is the root cause of the war continuing. Western imbeciles who continue to deny these basic facts are directly responsible for driving us towards the brink. You are personally responsible for this.
That's just more bloviating. The way to ensure nobody launches nuclear weapons is to avoid creating tensions that can lead to launch of nuclear weapons. Whom idiots are going to blame once the weapons are launched and we're all dying is irrelevant.
More moralizing. It absolutely does not matter who launches the nukes first, everybody is going to die exactly the same way including imbeciles who will feel morally superior dying.
It is the duty of all countries to avoid situations that can lead to use of nuclear weapons by any country. Everyone participating in escalations of tensions is equally responsible for the result.
Russia is indeed not threatening to use nuclear weapons, but it's also clear that escalating tensions could lead to use of nuclear weapons. This isn't some paradox. There were plenty of situations during the cold war when a nuclear disaster nearly happened by accident. I guess an utter ignoramus would not be aware of that.
This isn't fear mongering. Even Biden himself recently said that we're closet to a nuclear holocaust since the Cuban missile crisis. Only an absolute idiot would continue to insist that the danger is imagined.
Again, what you consider acceptable plays no role in Russia or US deciding whether they will use nuclear weapons or not. Creating a situation where such weapons could be used must be avoided at all costs. The fact that someone cannot comprehend this illustrates phenomenal levels of idiocy.
The tension we are talking about here is increased escalation of hostilities between the west and Russia. While your myopic view only sees Russia using nuclear weapons, it's entirely possible that the west will as well in their desperation. US used nuclear weapons in Japan, and considered using tactical nukes both in Korea and Vietnam. This is well documented. Should NATO choose to become directly engaged then this becomes a possibility.
I'm stating a plain fact here. If you admit being in that group of people that's you admitting to idiocy as opposed to me calling you one. Since you're reporting that's an admission of the fact.
You have absolutely no idea what is or isn't probable. Everything you believe is based on the propaganda you guzzle. Everything that's been happening with the war on the ground and the economic war has been at odds with what you thought would happen, yet here you are confidently convinced nuclear war won't happen because you don't think it's reasonable.
Stating that advocating for tensions that will lead to a nuclear holocaust is idiocy can't be done enough.
I stated that people who fall into a particular category are idiots. You then proceeded to say you fall into that category. Not sure how I'm insulting you there. Seems like it's you insulting yourself.
End of human civilization is not something to be gambled with. The fact that you're willing to take a chance on billions of people dying for your ideology says everything I need to know about you. Western experts all agree that the chance of a nuclear exchange is increasing every day.
The fact that you'd use ad hominem incorrectly is definitely par for the course.
But still you are cherry picking western resources. Even the new Atlas is arguing very one sided.
Never ever have I pretended that. There are favorable geopolitical and historical reasons for Russia to start the war against the Ukraine, no doubt. But morally speaking there is still no justification of the war.
Alright now we are in conspiracy theory territory. Let's stop here. You are not making it better for yourself proving your image wrong of arguing one sided in perfect alignment with the Russian narrative.
What specifically are you contesting there?
Morally speaking it's no different than what the west has been doing. This is the world we live in, only way to avoid such conflicts is to respect boundaries. Russia has reasonable demands that their security concerns are respected. They were perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own things until the coup there. If NATO did not continue to expand and encircle Russia since the 90s then there would've been no war.
This is not a conspiracy theory it's a documented fact. You continue to show disturbing amount of ignorance regarding the topic you're attempting to debate. Here's a research paper you should read to educate yourself https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299383810_The_Separatist_War_in_Donbas_A_Violent_Break-up_of_Ukraine
Which Russia did , obviously. And still wrongdoings of the west still do not justify anything of this.
That is way to simplistic. Russia is of course fine when a Russian friendly government is in power in the ukraine and is not fine, when an Europe friendly government is in power. That is pretty obvious from the last 30 years. Russia was not able to just let the Ukraine do it's thing.
Once upon a time there even was the possibility of Russia joining NATO, if we take Putin's words from 20 years ago seriously. And all of the Eastern Europe countries wanted desperately into the NATO because if pervious experience with Russia / the Soviet union, despite skepticism of the USA. History is a little more nuanced than "the west / NATOs big goal is simply to encircle and destroy Russia"
Oh you showed me that resource already. I don't find the word "coup" in there. Could you please cite the part where you believe that this proves your theory.
And just because this is a scientific paper doesn't make it a definite fact. It's history after all, not rocket science. Keep a little skepticism.
Wrong doings of the west are direct cause for Russia starting the war. You're still struggling with the concept of cause and effect here I see.
The government was friendly with both Europe and Russia and participated with each economic bloc. Your whole narrative is false.
Once upon a time the west had a chance to integrate Russia, instead the west chose to make Russia into an enemy and now you get to reap what you sowed.
If you actually read that and don't think that's a coup then what else is there to say.
Maybe follow your own advice. All you've done in this thread was regurgitate propaganda.