- cross-posted to:
- ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.
Exact full quote from CNN:
“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063
The real question is why does russia want to kill Ukrainians to the last Ukrainian.
Russia repeatedly made peace talk attempts early on. Western powers that actually call those shots rebuffed them. Boris Johnson himself intervened, allegedly.
The answer to the real question, which is why Russia isn't unilaterally ending the war, is that its objectives have not been met and/or the status quo is acceptable to them. The former is the exact same as saying why Russia invaded in the first place.
So why do Western powers want this was to go to the last Ukrainian? NATO military tactics that assume air dominance without the air dominance. Zero expectation of a win, despite the propaganda.
Ukraine dragged one of their own negotiators into the street and shot him in the head.
Russian conditions to even consider peace were pretty insane, like keeping all the territory their initial conquest managed to claim, removing the baltics and other countries bordering Russia from NATO and forbid Ukraine from joining any alliance. Not only could Ukraine not fulfill all those conditions, they would never accept that.
You are confused and are including open demands Russia made of the US / NATO prior to the invasion. Russia has not demanded that Ukraine somehow de-NATOify Baltic countries.
Russia's initial negotiation demands were things like this:
These are in no way insane demands given the context of NATO encirclement, the civil war and ethnic cleansing at their doorstep, and the fact that Russia is obviously never giving up Crimea. It is also... the lead-in to negotiations, which Ukraine started balking at around the same time reports came out about Western prevention of Ukraine participating.
Yea, even those were in no way reasonable. Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine's ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.
Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you're getting that. The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine's application was denied so there's none of that either. And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.
They're very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.
Ukraine haw a very serious Nazi problem that liberals everywhere recognized right up until it became inconvenient for the war narrative. The Nazi problem is part and parcel of the civil war and failure to abide by Minsk II, as those Nazis were the tip of the spear against ethnic Ruasians in Donbas. Disempowering and jailing Nazi war criminals shouldn't be controversial.
Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATO's advancements despite the fall of the Soviet Union, this demand is already a half-measure. Ukraine being militarized and used as a Western forward military base is not something Western countries would tolerate if the roles were reversed.
Ukraine isn't joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.
Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, "you couldn't abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only option". Ukraine and their Western masters had nearly a decade to democratically deal with the breakaway states per their own agreements and chose to instead ramp up a civil war targeting ethnic Russians right on Russia's border. The failure od the status quo ans the West's ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.
Ukraine isn't getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.
Russia could take the whole thing any time they wanted to, lol. They have complete air superiority and a much more powerful arsenal and manpower and tactics. They could do the American thing - the NATO thing - and destroy the rest of the country, targeting Kyiv and civilian infrastructure en masse. Instead, they are choosing a war of attrition that achieves many of their objectives without just rolling over the whole country.
Neutrality is far safer for Ukrainians and always was. A neutral Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded by Russia in the first place.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Like... at all. It's been going on since 2013/2014. Please educate yourself on the derussification efforts undertaken by Ukraine targeted at ethnic Russians as well as their ruthless targeting of the Donbas.
None of what?
Ukraine is already not a sovereign state, lol. Their political leadership was chosen by Nuland et al behind closed doors as part of Euromaidan. Neutrality would actually be the most sovereign they have any chance of being, toyed with through economic courtship rather than couped and destroyed.
And again, Russia can annex Ukraine wherever it wants to. Most of it, at least. Poland would probably claim Western Ukraine for itself with various bullshit excuses.
No idea what these points are other than just lies. Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesn't now. Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia. As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from. They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.
None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasn't joining NATO.
The political leadership Nuland 'selected' was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. That's like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.
Can't find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.
I'm guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. I'd suggest going to some other sources.
UA incorporated Azov Batallion into its official forces aftee the invasion and Right Sector is everywhere. What on earth are you talking about?
You're also losing the plot if you think, "Russia has more Nazis" is relevant to whether this is a reasonable demand in this exact context where the Nazis are the shock troopa against Donbas. Also, Russia has about 5X the population of Ukraine.
Forms of nominal hypocrisy just plain don't matter. This isn't model UN or debate club, it's powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. "Disable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbas" is a reasonable starting ask.
Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasn't threatening anyone, it was undergoing "shock therapy", getting dismembered, and losing tens of millions of lives.
NATO has never been a defensive org. Article 5 has only been triggered once and it was used to launch a war of aggression (amazing). It has taken many offensive and aggreasive moves, however. This narrative that membera join for safety is absurd: it's always an escalatiom, a threat, and is done with this knowlesge. The primary thing is actually bestows is official American military bases in your country.
And as you can see, it mase Ukrainians much more vulnerable
This doesn't counter what I said at all.
UA isn't joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as I've argued, it actually securea a better position for the Ukrainian people, who are currently stuck acting as proxies for Western plans against Russia - and paying for it (have been since 2014).
Because UA continued to shell Donbas. RF and Donbas troops implemented ceasefires repeatedly. RF pulling out unilaterally would have meant giving UA Nazis more kills against folks in Donbas. UA refused to actually work together to end the war there and implement the required referenda.
Delusional.
They're a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldn't have expected "disempower and get rid of your Nazi commandos" to be something you'd oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. I'm confident you were unaware of basically everything I've told you given the babytime propaganda stories you've been telling me. You're welcome!
It absolutely does. UA doesn't even have airfields an F-16 could use anymore. UA has no real air presence at all, which is why the only UA things you hear about with any evidence are manpads. This is also why UA following NATO doctrine in "the counteroffensive" has been such a completr failure. No air support.
Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.
I know you don't. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but it's very uncool to have such strong opinions in something you've never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what it's currently using to destroy ammo dumps and take down planes. Or, better, endeavor to feel okay having no opinion yet.
They have more manpower because they have 5X the population.
UA is also doing forceful conscription and with much more dramatic coercion.
???
Sounds like you haven't heard the recording or you wouldn't be saying such nonsense.
Ah, you have to actually know what ethnic cleansing is and then know what has been happening in UA for the last decade and apply it yourself. The ways in which media outlets and politicians use certain terms is very selective and UA never really got the enemy/target treatment that brown or "bad" countries get.
Anyways, you should research better. Here's a starting point: the National Druzhina.
You'd guess wrong and I think you're projecting, as you clearly have relies entirely on certain dominant narratives to give you opinions rathee than informing yourself.
If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies it's quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.
Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.
Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive. Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.
Also if you want to compare numbers: highest estimate of Azov brigade was 2500, highest for Wagner was 50000. Wagner also got mostly incorporated into the Russian military.
The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO. Thankfully Russia seems to have run out of equipment to annoy us and this stopped completely halfway into it's war with Ukraine.
If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others. You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.
This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.
Yes. "Denazify" everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territory... or else.
Sure, totally fair demands. /s
Can you explain why countries want to join NATO? Why do they want to give away some control of their military so badly and risk being dragged into someone else's war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?
It's as if there's a country to the east pushing the idea that they're actually part of Russia, that their culture doesn't exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said country's army should just invade!
Reminds me of that meme where the guy puts something into his bike wheel and then blames someone else for the outcome.
Kind of amazing how liberals will tell themselves little stories and even believethem rather than actually having to learn something.
You should be honest with yourself and at least become familiar with the context of the demands before forming an opinion. I'll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RF's invasion.
These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And let's just say I'm dubious that you're actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that they're taking a deal to be subservient to the United States, which usually requires their political class, and therefore economic ruling class, to see an interest in doing do. Not that they're correct - the US is slowly deindustrializing its European allies as we speak. The reason why those interests won out? Those are specific historical stories. Try answering your own question but for Ukraine's toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?
Case in point that you're not curious in any real answers.
Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.
Oh, I'm liberal now. Weird as I was a fascist just before I left reddit. In a few hours someone will call me a communist.
I'm very honest with myself. I also try to not bullshit myself into believing it's only an Ukraine problem.
Russia didn't invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis. After Yanukovych weirdly reverted his position on Europe (European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement) and got kicked out, Russia decided to invade to support all those "Russian speakers". Of course, there was even a referendum, but as Igor Girkin said, they had the guns and politicians did as they were told.
People like to forget that far-right groups like the Azov Battalion and some of far-left/anarchist groups that joined the fight were only created after the invasion, after the Ukrainian army completely failed to do their job. It's as if the ultra-nationalist and people with more extreme views in general are the first to react to an aggression against their country! /s
But yes, Ukraine had "nazis", but so did Russia. I recommend reading about people like Aleksandr Dugin (and his views), which seems to be liked even by Putin himself. As a space fan and a fan of some of the Soviet accomplishments, I couldn't help but notice that when the war started, the boss of Roscosmos was Dmitry Rogozin... an old member of the Russian National Unity party, which had some "interesting" views. In fact, here's a picture of young Rogozin with the flag of the party in the background. I'll also give you a hint: they're nazi as fuck.
I guess we need to invade Russia, right? And make some demands where Russia gives away part of their territory... at least that's what the very well informed and smart people such as yourself think should happen? Or this only applies to when Russia has a problem with someone else?
Also, in 2019 the far-right party (Svoboda) received 2.16% of the votes in the whole country. Not even 3%. And then Russia comes in, invades Ukraine again and transforms Azov into national heroes. Well, good fucking job Russia! I'm sure that helps reducing support for nazis. /s
If that's the case, then Putin must be part of the conspiracy? The guy managed to give a new life to the alliance and even recruited 2 new countries where popular support to joining used to be really low. There's no way he's helping NATO so much without being part of all that. Surely you can see the guy is a plant?
Or maybe there's a simpler explanation (Occam's razor, for the cool kids).
Maybe people read what Russian politicians say, look at the size of their country, remember what happened during the days of the Soviet Union (and now at what happened to Ukraine) and say: "maybe we should be friends with that big guy over there, just in case the local bully decides to invade us".
Of course my lIbErAl mind is too dumb to understand high level politics like you do, but if one reads Putin's On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians and Address concerning the events in Ukraine, it's not that hard to imagine that there's a much simpler reason.
What lead to the change in Ukraine's political class? Other than Yanukovych's reversal and people getting pissed? I don't know. If you're suggesting any foul play, I'd like to remind you that Russia intervened directly in Belarus and Kazakhstan, so apparently that's all good.
I'm curious, that's why I sometimes actually read what Mr Putin says, am aware of his obsession with Peter the Great and his conquest of the Azov sea, etc. I also watch a bit of Russian television as they have interesting views on countries around them. I'm not even talking about weekly threats of nuking European cities or higher ups at Russia Today suggesting that Ukrainian kids should be killed in a river... Did you know that Kazakhstan now has a lot of "ethnic Russians" in need of protection? A bit weird since everything was fine until they stopped playing ball with Russia...
To know the real answers you can't filter out everything that doesn't fit your view. You have people like Putin making up excuses for his view that Ukraine is not really a proper country... yet you decide not to read it and to outright ignore it. And I'm the dumb guy who doesn't want real answers?
My apologies, let me make it easier for you:
Russia, which is not governed by morons, decided to invade Ukraine to accomplish certain objectives. They knew what they were doing, you don't need to make excuses up to defend their actions.
Like any major power, they don't give a fuck about Ukraine or the people that live in Ukraine. It's not a nice thing, but hey, it is what it is.
No, Russia didn't have to invade. No, Ukraine wasn't going to invade Russia (nuclear obviously, plus they struggle to take control of their own territory...). And no, there's no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (they've been trying since the early 2000's...).
Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine. Just don't try to come up with bs excuses for what they're doing. You like Russia and you like what they're doing. I on the other hand don't agree with they're doing and also have a similar position when other countries do the same, so you can see why I don't support their invasion of Ukraine.
Fascism is just an offshoot of liberalism so this isn't a zinger
You definitely tell stories and deflect and make guesses but present them as if they're fact so gonna disagree with you, champ
Yeah duh, or at least not proximally or the exact Nazis being referred to. This feels like saying things just to feel like you're lecturing but it doesn't mean anything. The next two paragraphs don't address what I said or answer my question.
Cool, what impact does that have re: Russia's demand? It's a pretty liberal thing to try to come up with pointless gotchas or like entire states are hypocritical or something so you don't need to look any deeper. Are you able to provide even the most basic explanation for why the RF would want UA to hand over/imprison their Nazis?
Ahahahahahahaha
Already did. First in 1918, then in the early 90s (it was called the shock doctrine).
Anyways, you seem to again be arguing with some liberal in your head that bases everything on abstract rules and gotchas. Has nothing to do with me or anything I've said.
Congratulations you've caught up with liberal arguments from 2022. It is, in fact, peak liberalism to think that election results are the same as political power, or power in general. I'm sure the Roma murdered in tacitly state-supported pogroms are delighted to know Svoboda only got a few percent in an election.
Anyways, you failed to answer my question. I'm not even a tough grader. Just looking for very basic material context, and you couldn't do it. I even gave you a hint!
This makes no sense.
This is a form of liberalism called idealism, and it's as hilarious as it is wrong. People just got together, for no clear reason, and thought a bunch until change happened. Actually don't mention "for no clear reason", because this begins the thought of, "well why would I need to think about material causes?", which puts you into dangerous territory of reading or understanding something before having an opinion on it. Best to just make shit up and have little cartoon characters voice your opinions and tell little stories, right?
You are perfectly capable of understanding anything I've mentioned. You're unwilling and uninterested, and are a victim of propaganda and your society. If you chose honesty, things would go a lot better, but you so far you seem unable to drop the habit of making things up to fill in the gaps. Very defensive behavior, which is typical for Reddit-brained liberlaism.
Reading Putin and extracting value from it requires already knowing all of the things he mentions, as he is just a singular politician struggling in his own interest, attempting to make very particular cases to very particular audiences. I am... dubious that any of that happened here.
You skimmed all of that and failed to notice the coup, lol.
Your behavior says the exact opposite
Ahahahahahahaha
See the gears turning. You've been criticized! What to say in response? Hmm... well this Maoo jerk just said you used simplistic examples because you can't understand what's happening on the planet due to ignorance and worldview. That's a meany thing to say! Better turn to... uh... condescension? Yeah, and say "I'll make it simpler"! That'll get 'em!
Because I probably do have to spell it out: I said you were being simplistic. Making it simpler is dunking on yourself.
You jumped into this thread to flail around because you didn't understand what those were, and continue to miss the most basic points made about them, lol. No wonder this is left vague.
Now you're doing the "I'm rubber you're glue" thing. Amazing how contradiction brings out the inner child in liberals.
Who are the "they"? Be specific. This will help you on your journey on learning how to know things.
According to what logic? Who makes any country invade another? This type of thinking isn't even appropriate for the category of thing we're talking about. I'm giving you baby's first realpolitik here and nothing is sinking in.
lol who on earth are you talking to? Do you think I said anything like that? If not, tell me who you're talking to. Be specific. Does the person in your head saying these things look like a muppet? Did you win your argument with them?
UA isn't joining NATO in the near term either. If you stopped making shit up and asked questions or read things, you might say things that are germane to this conversation.
Liberal brain strikes again. Good guys vs. bad guys. If you criticize me, you must support the bad guys. I have a big brain.
Now we've graduated to the "lying their ass off" portion of disagreeing with a liberal.
Ah yes, that's the thing we're talking about: whether or not you support Russia invading Ukraine.
gottem
Russia does not want that. That's the answer.
Seriously, to listen to hexbears talk about the Ukranian invasion, you'd think that the US talked Ukraine into invading Russia just for fun, and that Russia was simply left with no choice.
The killing can stop absolutely any day now - all Putin has to do is pull out and pay for his mess, easy peasy
You should do more listening to hexbears because that sounds nothing like us.
All you have to do is read through this very thread to find numerous examples of hexbears acting like US liberals are primarily (or second only to Ukraine itself) for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
"Why could Ukraine have just bent over and let Russia take it over??? And why couldn't the rest of the world just pretend it never happened?? What about 'Murica in the middle east???"
Sounds pretty familiar to me.
I don't see any of that, personally.
Any chance the liberal in your head is editoriakizing some straw men?
It's literally everywhere in this thread. There's history lessons abound about how bad Ukraine is (with no noticeable criticism of Russia) but no example of what should be done now except to have them give up their sovereignty, their most valuable land, and giving in to Russian's demands.
It's insane to me that these are the same people who would probably say that the US shouldn't have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan, or that the US shouldn't invade Cuba. In their view, since the US did a coup there once, I guess all their people deserve to die and lose their sovereignty? How does that make sense?
"No, we just want the US and Europe to stop giving them weapons to defend themselves!" OK then, then what do you think will happen? More deaths and then a loss of sovereignty obviously. Why is this on them and not on Russia, who simply have the option of stopping their aggression and walking away?
Show one example, lib.
deleted by creator