Ukraine told critics of the pace of its three-month-old counteroffensive to "shut up" on Thursday, the sharpest signal yet of Kyiv's frustration at leaks from Western officials that say its forces are advancing too slowly.
Do you think it is realistic that Russia will unilaterally pull out? The war will end when Russia leaves, but Russia isn't going to leave until they are pushed out, negotiations are had, or Ukraine is destroyed. The first possibility is becoming increasingly more unlikely, and the last is something that nobody should want
That leaves negotiations. I think Ukraine should come to the table while they still have some leverage, which is decreasing every week that they throw their men into the meat grinder without meaningful gains.
It doesn’t leave only negotiations. Russia tried for 10+ years in Afghanistan. The US the same, there and in Vietnam. There is such as giving up and going home. That’s the “win” a small state can inflict on a large one. I don’t think that’s where Ukraine and Russia is headed, but there’s a quick for Ukraine and a slow “win” for Ukraine.
Wait, so your ideal is instead of negotiations, in the same vein as Afghanistan, Ukraine experiences this horrible war for another 9 years and then becomes a state ruled by the fighters involved in the war with the most extremist far right ideology rule it as a theocracy? To be clear that ideology in this case is Nazism.
You don't sound like an ally of the Ukrainian people.
You do realise that it was Ukraine who refuesed to negotiate and not the other way around? Also, mind reminding me who it is that is performing a failing counteroffensive?
aw the red fascist move, a classic. you are clearly very smart. Ukraine is also guilty, it could leave the donbass and crimea, or at least given them proper autonomy within the country. Thats all they had to do. But no they chose to do a genocide and now we're here.
Why is it Russia's job to police Ukraine? Shouldn't it be Ukrainians who aren't Nazis instead of a foreign occupational force? I thought occupations by foreign powers were bad?
I don't deny that Russia has reasons to step in, but what I am saying is that ideologically, I don't want to advocate for or normalize the idea that some countries deserve to have "spheres of influence" over others. It's about consistency - the US isn't entitled to its sphere of influence in Latin America, so why would I oppose one sphere of influence and not another?
It was justifiable for Russian speakers in the Donbas to protest the removal of legal recognition and support for the Russian language, which is undeniably an injustice inflicted upon them. But that also means its an injustice for Putin to insinuate that Ukraine wasn't a real country before the Bolsheviks, or that Ukrainian identity and heritage in the rest of the country are intrinsically tied to Russia.
Honest question, what do you mean by "bad"? Morally bad? When has that ever been a meaningful factor in the security perogatives of a state? Also, how is it an occupation when the DPR and LPR are fighting alongaide the RF as allies? Do you still consider the Donbas part of Ukraine? I'm trying to understand your position here because (and I mean this clinically, not as an insult) despite your pfp, you've been saying a lot of stuff in this thread that would seem to come from a more standard liberal perspective.
Honest question, what do you mean by "bad"? Morally bad?
Bad in the sense that they violate people's right to self-determination.
When has that ever been a meaningful factor in the security perogatives of a state?
It hasn't, that's the issue. When have the security prerogatives of a state ever been a consideration for communists or anarchists?
International relations have long been governed by a system of bad-faith actors who go and make all these rules about national sovereignty and the theoretical equality it brings between nation-states only to set out to immediately try and undermine it. The US is really good at maintaining plausible deniability in the eyes of much of its populace and the world, at least initially (see: Iraq WMDs, the continued use of the Monroe Doctrine well into the present day, etc).
despite your pfp, you've been saying a lot of stuff in this thread that would seem to come from a more standard liberal perspective.
This is just because on this specific issue, I am not in agreement with what I perceive as reflexive support for Russia. I supported the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, regardless of the immediate material consequences to Afghanistanians who opposed the Taliban, so I support the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, despite there being similar reasons to advocate for staying, from the perspective of the Russian/Ukrainian rebel and their supporters. I've also been trying to find the more shitty liberal takes to reply to them too.
Also, how is it an occupation when the DPR and LPR are fighting alongside the RF as allies
Well, if security prerogatives of States are to be considered, Ukraine's internationally recognized borders have been violated by another sovereign power. If they're not, then only the positions occupied after February 23rd of 2022 would be under occupation.
For sure there’s a real risk Ukraine isn’t winning this war. But there’s never been a war where there’s absolute certainty one side will win, until we get to the “downfall” times.
Do you think it is realistic that Russia will unilaterally pull out? The war will end when Russia leaves, but Russia isn't going to leave until they are pushed out, negotiations are had, or Ukraine is destroyed. The first possibility is becoming increasingly more unlikely, and the last is something that nobody should want
That leaves negotiations. I think Ukraine should come to the table while they still have some leverage, which is decreasing every week that they throw their men into the meat grinder without meaningful gains.
It doesn’t leave only negotiations. Russia tried for 10+ years in Afghanistan. The US the same, there and in Vietnam. There is such as giving up and going home. That’s the “win” a small state can inflict on a large one. I don’t think that’s where Ukraine and Russia is headed, but there’s a quick for Ukraine and a slow “win” for Ukraine.
Wait, so your ideal is instead of negotiations, in the same vein as Afghanistan, Ukraine experiences this horrible war for another 9 years and then becomes a state ruled by the fighters involved in the war with the most extremist far right ideology rule it as a theocracy? To be clear that ideology in this case is Nazism.
You don't sound like an ally of the Ukrainian people.
Yeah why negotiate now while we still have hundreds of thousands of lives to throw into the meat grinder.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You do realise that it was Ukraine who refuesed to negotiate and not the other way around? Also, mind reminding me who it is that is performing a failing counteroffensive?
Putin is literally the one trying to negotiate
Removed by mod
aw the red fascist move, a classic. you are clearly very smart. Ukraine is also guilty, it could leave the donbass and crimea, or at least given them proper autonomy within the country. Thats all they had to do. But no they chose to do a genocide and now we're here.
And leave the people of the Donbas republics to be massacred by Ukranian Nazis? Idk, sounds like what a fascist would want.
Why is it Russia's job to police Ukraine? Shouldn't it be Ukrainians who aren't Nazis instead of a foreign occupational force? I thought occupations by foreign powers were bad?
deleted by creator
I don't deny that Russia has reasons to step in, but what I am saying is that ideologically, I don't want to advocate for or normalize the idea that some countries deserve to have "spheres of influence" over others. It's about consistency - the US isn't entitled to its sphere of influence in Latin America, so why would I oppose one sphere of influence and not another?
It was justifiable for Russian speakers in the Donbas to protest the removal of legal recognition and support for the Russian language, which is undeniably an injustice inflicted upon them. But that also means its an injustice for Putin to insinuate that Ukraine wasn't a real country before the Bolsheviks, or that Ukrainian identity and heritage in the rest of the country are intrinsically tied to Russia.
Honest question, what do you mean by "bad"? Morally bad? When has that ever been a meaningful factor in the security perogatives of a state? Also, how is it an occupation when the DPR and LPR are fighting alongaide the RF as allies? Do you still consider the Donbas part of Ukraine? I'm trying to understand your position here because (and I mean this clinically, not as an insult) despite your pfp, you've been saying a lot of stuff in this thread that would seem to come from a more standard liberal perspective.
Bad in the sense that they violate people's right to self-determination.
It hasn't, that's the issue. When have the security prerogatives of a state ever been a consideration for communists or anarchists?
International relations have long been governed by a system of bad-faith actors who go and make all these rules about national sovereignty and the theoretical equality it brings between nation-states only to set out to immediately try and undermine it. The US is really good at maintaining plausible deniability in the eyes of much of its populace and the world, at least initially (see: Iraq WMDs, the continued use of the Monroe Doctrine well into the present day, etc).
This is just because on this specific issue, I am not in agreement with what I perceive as reflexive support for Russia. I supported the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, regardless of the immediate material consequences to Afghanistanians who opposed the Taliban, so I support the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, despite there being similar reasons to advocate for staying, from the perspective of the Russian/Ukrainian rebel and their supporters. I've also been trying to find the more shitty liberal takes to reply to them too.
Well, if security prerogatives of States are to be considered, Ukraine's internationally recognized borders have been violated by another sovereign power. If they're not, then only the positions occupied after February 23rd of 2022 would be under occupation.
You don't make any sense man. I feel like you're all red in the face when you write these nonsensical replies.
So in your mind there's no situation where ukraine doesn't win this war?
For sure there’s a real risk Ukraine isn’t winning this war. But there’s never been a war where there’s absolute certainty one side will win, until we get to the “downfall” times.
So you think they should just keep sending conscripts to die until the downfall times or until Russia just decides to leave?
You think Russia should keep sending conscripts to die or should they just leave?
They can just keep sending missiles and artillery shells to die, they've got the initiative rn