Does your definition of "attack" include locking people in a church and burning them alive? How about sponsoring Neo-Nazi paramilitaries to murder and rape people for seaking a language? Shelling cities and civilians in defiance of international cease fire treaties?
I wonder though - if Russia hadn't illegally occupied Ukraine/Crimea, would that have happened?
If Ukrainian neo-Nazis hadn't trapped ethnic Russians in a building and burned them alive, would Russia have invaded?
My point is: there are no good guys in this conflict. Just two bad guys duking it out, with regular schmucks like you and me getting murdered for no reason. Anything that prolongs the conflict is bad.
We've got a document that lays out the timeline in some detail, but I can't find it right now.
The short version is that this is a continuation of a very, very long conflict between the western powers and Russia for control of Russia's resources. Like in a broad sense this geopolitical conflict as been going on for hundreds of years - Europe and now the USA want access to Russia's resources and to do that they have to get rid of the government currently in charge of Russia. In the past this was all kinds of great power bullshit, Napoleon's attempt to invade Moscow. Then it was the Russian civil war, where all the Western powers invaded Russia to try to stop the Reds, then WWII when the Nazis and their allies wanted to conquer everything east of them, exterminate or enslave the Slavs, and do Westward Expansion 2.0: Eastward Edition. Then the Cold War, where NATO was formed to counter and eventually destroy the Eastern Block. Well, 1991 happened, the USSR was destroyed, A few coups and murders and the shock doctrine ensured that the capitalists could loot everything, but ultimately the West didn't get the complete control of Russian territory and resources they wanted. Too many former Soviet Oligarchs and gangsters got in the way and control of the region stayed more or less in local hands - Russian Oligarchs in Russia, Ukrainian Oligarchs in Ukraine, and so on. NATO didn't disband after 1991, and didn't let Russia join when Putin tried a few times,because NATO's purpose is conquest of Russia and they hadn't pulled that off yet. NATO started annexing countries and moving it's borders towards Russia, forward positioning troops and weapons, and gradually encircling Russia on it's populous Western borders. When NATO started talking about moving in to Georgia the Russian's responded, invaded Georgia, and put an end to that. At some point later NATO decided to move on Ukraine, take control, and use it as a proxy to weaken Russia. They used the same tactic by supporting the Islamists in Afghanistan decades prior, and they'd used it in the middle east and few other places. The basic program is - destabilize a country, flood it with weapons, then let their neighbors bleed themselves dry trying to contain the insurgency. In pursuit of this NATO deployed a bunch of Ukrainian Nazis they'd saved after WWII for exactly this purpose and were gradually able to expand their influence in the country. 2013, the President of Ukraine doesn't want to sign a shitty deal with Europe both because it would fuck over Ukraine and it would fuck over Ukraine's trade with Russia, and the Nazis, almost entirely headquartered in Western Ukraine, use this as an excuse to take control of popular unrest and stage a coup. It gets nasty, Ukrainian Nationalists burn a bunch of Russian speaking Ukrainians to death, they throw the president out, the new coup government immediately passes laws making the previously legal Russian language illegal. Out East in the regions where most Ukrainians speak Russian, they see a bunch of Nazis who want them exterminated couping the government, they see the new coup government passing laws against their language, they say "Fuck this, we know what comes next" and take up arms demanding that Kiev grant them autonomy - some government autonomy, guarantees on their right to speak their language and protect their culture, basic shit. Kiev says no, tries to send the army in to Donbass to crush them, the army tells Kiev "Fuck you". Kiev isn't giving up so they arm all the Nazis and send them in to Donbass and they start murdering people. This turns in to a civil war. During the civil war NATO moves in. They start re-structuring, training, and arming the Ukrainian military loyal to Kiev. They stockpile all kinds of weapons and shit. The Nazis are rotating back from the front lines with combat experience and are getting integrated in to army units while their civilian Nazi counterparts are getting more and more control over western Ukraine's government, civic institutions, and culture. This goes on for years, Ukrainians kill thousands of Ukrainians. Meanwhile Russia, who doesn't want any of this shit happening in their neighborhood, is trying to get some kind of peace negotiations going to stop the conflict and stabilize Ukraine before it falls apart and turns in to a failed state. Well, Ukraine and a bunch of NATO goverments say yes, we'll talk, lets resolve this, then the Ukrainian Nazis break all the ceasefires and shitcan the peace talks. Happens twice, the accords were called Minsk I and Minsk II. We later find out that Germany and France, who were acting as restaurants of the peace talks, never had any intention of fulfilling the peace conditions and were just buying time to arm Ukraine. Eventually it's 2020 or something. Ukrainians are sick of this, they don't want to be at war with their own countrymen, they don't want to get dragged in to war with Russia because of Nazi psychos, so they vote for Zelensky. Zelensky's a very charismatic guy, well known from television, speaks Ukrainian and Russia. He runs on a peace platform, says he's going to uphold the cease fire and start negotiations. Well, once he takes office he goes out to the front and tells the guys at the front to shot shelling Donbass. The guys who are running the Front are Nazi fanatics, they tell him he's not in charge and he can go fuck himself and they keep shelling. So now Zelensky knows how Ukraine really works, he starts working with NATO and the Nationalists as basically a cheer-leader for Kiev and Galacia's agenda. Doesn't really have any power but he looks good on TV. This whole thing finally comes to a head when someone decides that the Ukrainian army, with all it's NATO training and equipment and guns and NATO provided Nazis, is ready to go crush Donbass. There's a big build-up - Ukraine is mobilizing it's army to go in to the east of the country and fight the Donbass republics plus whatever Specops guys Russia has sent in there. Russia is mobilizing part of it's army at the Ukrainian border and making threatening noises.
Now, it's February of 2022. Russia has it's troops on Ukraine's border. Ukrainian troops are moving East in to Donbass. Putin is making threatening noises, but no one thinks he'll actually pull the trigger and cross the border. Well, for whatever reason, and it's still unclear what he was thinking, he pulls the trigger. He claims that he's doing it to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians from the Banderite Nazis who intend to genocide them (probably in the driving them from their homes sense rather than the extermination of all men, women, and children sense but who knows with Nazis?). That might even be true. But other reasons are that he was finally sick of putting up with NATOs bullshit after decades of post-cold-war hostility, or he had a bad understanding of the situation and thought he could win a decisive victory with that swift attack on Kiev, or maybe he thought people in Ukraine were more angry with their government than they were and would demand some kind of end of hostilities? Who knows, high level commanders and presidents aren't always very bright and aren't always getting good intel. Whatever happened, Russia made us all look like idiots by invading (pretty much no one, including me, thought he'd actually do it), and now there was a hot war between NATO forces and Russian forces, except everyone inside NATO pretends that it's between Ukraine and Russia.
So, that's the very, very, very short, basically no details, rough sketch version of what lead up to the war. I didn't even mention stuff like the activities of Ukrainian Nazis in Canada and the US, or all of Russia's security concerns, or the weird fucked up relationship between the Russiand government and the US government, or how Russia didn't really invade Crimea because the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet and tons of support personnel were already stationed in Crimea so they really just changed the flags, or the role of propaganda in NATOs decisions on which weapons to send and which weapons to withhold, or what Trump's trade war bullshit likely had to do with all this, or a trillion other things.
Suffice to say, there's a lot of history behind this conflict. And since it's very unlikely either side will definitively win there will probably be more wars in this on-going geopolitical struggle between whoever is in charge of the west and whoever is in charge of Russia in the future, even if NATO and the Russian federation both collapse tomorrow. There's no way we're going to make it through the 21st century without intense wars over the vast unexploited resources of Siberia.
nah I'm just not going to read a novel to respond to you. I'm giving other people I disagree with reasonable replies. Your reply is unreasonable engage with though. Feel free to try again though with a more reasonable response.
I didn't even post that. Very reasonable of you to not pay attention to basic details like who you're responding to.
Almost as if you're simply putting on a facade of open-mindedness to cover for he fact that you will not engage with any ideas more complex than "Russia bad, NATO good".
Ah, sorry, you are right about getting the person wrong. The way lemmy is laid out on the app I'm using doesn't show the post before you, so I just assumed you were the same person.
In any case, that doesn't change what I said. I'm not going to read a novel then dissect it piece by piece when the premise of the entire post is "going to war and forcefully occupying a neighboring country can be justified."
I'm not saying all of Russia is bad, by the way. I admire Russia for a lot of reasons. The decision to invade their neighbor, however, cannot be justified, in the same way that the vast majority of the United States' wars cannot be justified.
that post was maybe 1500 words to summarize 100+ years of regional conflict with special attention on the last 10 years written in plain language. no special jargon or references to theoretical concepts. if that's a "novel" for you, it definitely explains your grasp of this situation and affirms the critique that you are willfully ignorant and incapable of analysis beyond "russia bad." and this is why people make fun of libs like you. many libs smugly dismiss conservatives as having "simple/childlike" worldviews and value systems. then they promptly adopt their own perfectly mirrored positions and petulantly stick their fingers in their ears like you're doing here.
I read it. Same answer I've been giving the whole time still applies. Nothing justifies an invasion and the murder of thousands of civilians. The majority of the Ukrainian people support continuing to defend their homes, including in the eastern regions. It is up to them to decide what they want to do. If they want to concede, they will do that. It's pretty simple.
Anyway, I'm done responding now. Good luck with your lives.
Ukrainians were couped every decade to make them hate Russians. 1991, 2004, 2014, and note how Zelensky was elected as a peace candidate, to stop the civil war. Instead there was a military buildup to invasion and multiple ceasefire breaches. In the meantime between those coups, Ukrainians seemed to gravitate towards at least neutrality and peace. Ukrainians will have been repeatedly violated by USA and now they are dying for Uncle Sam imperial interest while their country is being peacemeal sold for the peanuts and the war fervor as in every war ever fry their brains.
In any case, that doesn't change what I said. I'm not going to read a novel then dissect it piece by piece when the premise of the entire post is "going to war and forcefully occupying a neighboring country can be justified."
It's like one page. You asked for an explanation of what's going on. Take it or leave it. Sorry it's not formatted very well I had to type it on the fly at like 3am.
Guys you can't justify a war with hundreds of thousands of deaths where one side is sending missiles at civilian buildings on the daily, it's just not going to happen.
In 2014, the Ukrainian government was overthrown and the new government shifted towards Western alignment while banning opposition parties. Many people in Ukraine, especially in the east, have cultural ties to Russia and disagreed with the change, but were left with no means of having their voices heard because they were cut out of the democratic process, and that's why the resistance groups exist in the first place.
Ah, by argue I meant something along the lines of "have an upset and angry discussion." I disagree with some of the premise of what he said though, so I am going to push back on that.
Good point never thought of it like that before. I love Bill Clinton, Neoliberalism is radical. Did you know he played the saxophone? So cool. Slava USA
Your original post makes it seem like you think NATO are the bad guys here because they are supplying weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves.
I asked "who attacked who" because to me, it seems pretty clear that Russia, a dictatorship whose government has a history of human rights violations and disregard for human life, is doing a bad thing when they invade a neighboring country and start shooting missiles at civilian homes on a daily basis for a year and half.
Could you explain how this is not a clear "Russia doing bad thing, we should help Ukraine" situation?
NATO is mostly responsible for the dead Ukrainians. Ukraine has no reason to fight this war. If they lose, fine, the Russian part gets renamed and a higher minimum wage. Only rich assholes lose out. If Ukraine wins they get dead sons and burned schools but the US oil companies are happy.
It is pretty clear Ukraine shouldn't be fighting this war for the US companies.
If it were up to Ukrainians to collectively decide whether or not to continue the conflict, Zelensky would not have canceled the elections for his position later this year.
The Ukrainian constitution does not allow for elections to be held during periods of martial law, which was declared at the start of the war.
If there is ever a good time to declare martial law, being invaded by a neighboring country might qualify as a justifiable time.
In any case, it's constitutional, but Ukrainian political process isn't what we are here to talk about.
Fundamentally, I agree with you - If the majority of Ukrainians were to decide they don't want the war to continue, the war should stop. The number show, however, that the people are not ready to give up.
You don't get to set the topic. If you don't want to discuss it then nobody can compell you to do so. Don't pretend it's irrelevant to the topic you've chosen to engage with just because it's inconvenient for your arugment to engage with it.
The topic is technically "did China supply Russia with weapons etc?" But the topic we've been talking about for a bit now is "is the invasion justified," not "is the Ukrainian constitution constructed in an ideal way."
The ideal-ness of the constitution has no bearing on whether the invasion was justified, because invading your neighbor and killing thousands of civilians, even if their constitution is not completely ideal, cannot be justified.
I'm officially announcing now that I am going to sleep. Goodnight, and I hope you can all do some reflecting on whether invading neighboring countries is good or bad. I'm done responding to all of this.
While humorous, that isn't actually how polls work. I'd suggest looking up the statistics. The majority of Ukrainians, even in the Eastern regions, still support defending themselves.
Does that mean that the majority of Ukrainians support fighting the war for the sake of US companies? Or could there be something else they are fighting for?
They are fighting for honor glory and pride. However they will die for it and get none. While all the worst people in mu country will buy a new jetski off the profits they made from the ordeal
Is it possible they are fighting to protect their freedoms and their families? Honor and glory is nice and all but I'd imagine that most of them aren't Game of Thrones characters.
No, none of that is at stake. Russia has better labor rights than Ukraine. So if they cared about their families, especially the people in the region in question, they would be slfighting for russia.
I have to push back on "none of that is at stake."
When Russia sends missiles and drones into Kiev that hit civilian buildings, homes, and kill regular people on a daily/weekly basis, is the message they are receiving "Russia has better labor rights than Ukraine?"
They are at war. That is what happens during war. They are only at stake because there is a war on. If the war stopped those would go away. And as Russia would likely increase thr labor standards in territory under their controll things would improve on every front for the lives of the average Ukrainian if the didn't do the war.
I understood. It's an unserious question, so I gave an unserious answer. China isn't militarily supporting Russia. They sent some kids toys and the same raw materials they exported everywhere anyway.
Ah, I see what happened. I didn't address the China part of your original question because I actually agree with you there. They aren't militarily supporting Russia based on this article. I don't see why China would do that, since it wouldn't really benefit them.
I was addressing part 2 of your comment, where you implied that NATO is doing a bad thing by supporting Ukraine. Unless I misunderstood - I assumed "They are the good guys trying to end the war" was sarcasm.
Who attacked who again?
Does your definition of "attack" include locking people in a church and burning them alive? How about sponsoring Neo-Nazi paramilitaries to murder and rape people for seaking a language? Shelling cities and civilians in defiance of international cease fire treaties?
I don't mean to get in an argument, because that isn't at all productive.
I wonder though - if Russia hadn't illegally occupied Ukraine/Crimea, would that have happened?
If Ukrainian neo-Nazis hadn't trapped ethnic Russians in a building and burned them alive, would Russia have invaded?
My point is: there are no good guys in this conflict. Just two bad guys duking it out, with regular schmucks like you and me getting murdered for no reason. Anything that prolongs the conflict is bad.
For the record - I agree that burning people alive in a building is bad, and war should be avoided if possible.
You didn't really answer my question though. Why do the resistance groups exist in the first place?
We've got a document that lays out the timeline in some detail, but I can't find it right now.
The short version is that this is a continuation of a very, very long conflict between the western powers and Russia for control of Russia's resources. Like in a broad sense this geopolitical conflict as been going on for hundreds of years - Europe and now the USA want access to Russia's resources and to do that they have to get rid of the government currently in charge of Russia. In the past this was all kinds of great power bullshit, Napoleon's attempt to invade Moscow. Then it was the Russian civil war, where all the Western powers invaded Russia to try to stop the Reds, then WWII when the Nazis and their allies wanted to conquer everything east of them, exterminate or enslave the Slavs, and do Westward Expansion 2.0: Eastward Edition. Then the Cold War, where NATO was formed to counter and eventually destroy the Eastern Block. Well, 1991 happened, the USSR was destroyed, A few coups and murders and the shock doctrine ensured that the capitalists could loot everything, but ultimately the West didn't get the complete control of Russian territory and resources they wanted. Too many former Soviet Oligarchs and gangsters got in the way and control of the region stayed more or less in local hands - Russian Oligarchs in Russia, Ukrainian Oligarchs in Ukraine, and so on. NATO didn't disband after 1991, and didn't let Russia join when Putin tried a few times,because NATO's purpose is conquest of Russia and they hadn't pulled that off yet. NATO started annexing countries and moving it's borders towards Russia, forward positioning troops and weapons, and gradually encircling Russia on it's populous Western borders. When NATO started talking about moving in to Georgia the Russian's responded, invaded Georgia, and put an end to that. At some point later NATO decided to move on Ukraine, take control, and use it as a proxy to weaken Russia. They used the same tactic by supporting the Islamists in Afghanistan decades prior, and they'd used it in the middle east and few other places. The basic program is - destabilize a country, flood it with weapons, then let their neighbors bleed themselves dry trying to contain the insurgency. In pursuit of this NATO deployed a bunch of Ukrainian Nazis they'd saved after WWII for exactly this purpose and were gradually able to expand their influence in the country. 2013, the President of Ukraine doesn't want to sign a shitty deal with Europe both because it would fuck over Ukraine and it would fuck over Ukraine's trade with Russia, and the Nazis, almost entirely headquartered in Western Ukraine, use this as an excuse to take control of popular unrest and stage a coup. It gets nasty, Ukrainian Nationalists burn a bunch of Russian speaking Ukrainians to death, they throw the president out, the new coup government immediately passes laws making the previously legal Russian language illegal. Out East in the regions where most Ukrainians speak Russian, they see a bunch of Nazis who want them exterminated couping the government, they see the new coup government passing laws against their language, they say "Fuck this, we know what comes next" and take up arms demanding that Kiev grant them autonomy - some government autonomy, guarantees on their right to speak their language and protect their culture, basic shit. Kiev says no, tries to send the army in to Donbass to crush them, the army tells Kiev "Fuck you". Kiev isn't giving up so they arm all the Nazis and send them in to Donbass and they start murdering people. This turns in to a civil war. During the civil war NATO moves in. They start re-structuring, training, and arming the Ukrainian military loyal to Kiev. They stockpile all kinds of weapons and shit. The Nazis are rotating back from the front lines with combat experience and are getting integrated in to army units while their civilian Nazi counterparts are getting more and more control over western Ukraine's government, civic institutions, and culture. This goes on for years, Ukrainians kill thousands of Ukrainians. Meanwhile Russia, who doesn't want any of this shit happening in their neighborhood, is trying to get some kind of peace negotiations going to stop the conflict and stabilize Ukraine before it falls apart and turns in to a failed state. Well, Ukraine and a bunch of NATO goverments say yes, we'll talk, lets resolve this, then the Ukrainian Nazis break all the ceasefires and shitcan the peace talks. Happens twice, the accords were called Minsk I and Minsk II. We later find out that Germany and France, who were acting as restaurants of the peace talks, never had any intention of fulfilling the peace conditions and were just buying time to arm Ukraine. Eventually it's 2020 or something. Ukrainians are sick of this, they don't want to be at war with their own countrymen, they don't want to get dragged in to war with Russia because of Nazi psychos, so they vote for Zelensky. Zelensky's a very charismatic guy, well known from television, speaks Ukrainian and Russia. He runs on a peace platform, says he's going to uphold the cease fire and start negotiations. Well, once he takes office he goes out to the front and tells the guys at the front to shot shelling Donbass. The guys who are running the Front are Nazi fanatics, they tell him he's not in charge and he can go fuck himself and they keep shelling. So now Zelensky knows how Ukraine really works, he starts working with NATO and the Nationalists as basically a cheer-leader for Kiev and Galacia's agenda. Doesn't really have any power but he looks good on TV. This whole thing finally comes to a head when someone decides that the Ukrainian army, with all it's NATO training and equipment and guns and NATO provided Nazis, is ready to go crush Donbass. There's a big build-up - Ukraine is mobilizing it's army to go in to the east of the country and fight the Donbass republics plus whatever Specops guys Russia has sent in there. Russia is mobilizing part of it's army at the Ukrainian border and making threatening noises.
Now, it's February of 2022. Russia has it's troops on Ukraine's border. Ukrainian troops are moving East in to Donbass. Putin is making threatening noises, but no one thinks he'll actually pull the trigger and cross the border. Well, for whatever reason, and it's still unclear what he was thinking, he pulls the trigger. He claims that he's doing it to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians from the Banderite Nazis who intend to genocide them (probably in the driving them from their homes sense rather than the extermination of all men, women, and children sense but who knows with Nazis?). That might even be true. But other reasons are that he was finally sick of putting up with NATOs bullshit after decades of post-cold-war hostility, or he had a bad understanding of the situation and thought he could win a decisive victory with that swift attack on Kiev, or maybe he thought people in Ukraine were more angry with their government than they were and would demand some kind of end of hostilities? Who knows, high level commanders and presidents aren't always very bright and aren't always getting good intel. Whatever happened, Russia made us all look like idiots by invading (pretty much no one, including me, thought he'd actually do it), and now there was a hot war between NATO forces and Russian forces, except everyone inside NATO pretends that it's between Ukraine and Russia.
So, that's the very, very, very short, basically no details, rough sketch version of what lead up to the war. I didn't even mention stuff like the activities of Ukrainian Nazis in Canada and the US, or all of Russia's security concerns, or the weird fucked up relationship between the Russiand government and the US government, or how Russia didn't really invade Crimea because the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet and tons of support personnel were already stationed in Crimea so they really just changed the flags, or the role of propaganda in NATOs decisions on which weapons to send and which weapons to withhold, or what Trump's trade war bullshit likely had to do with all this, or a trillion other things.
Suffice to say, there's a lot of history behind this conflict. And since it's very unlikely either side will definitively win there will probably be more wars in this on-going geopolitical struggle between whoever is in charge of the west and whoever is in charge of Russia in the future, even if NATO and the Russian federation both collapse tomorrow. There's no way we're going to make it through the 21st century without intense wars over the vast unexploited resources of Siberia.
Either way, that's the very short summary.
average leftist meme
but
, this is basically the backbone of a potential essay on why we are against NATO in this conflict and why Putin isn't Hitler reincarnated
also putin isn't hitler because he has no stated ambition to wipe out any ethnic groups
Ngl that first paragraph could use a couple line breaks
lol I'm not going to read this, sorry
I refuse to engage with any explanation of a complex historical or Geopolitical situation that cannot be boiled down to "Russia bad".
nah I'm just not going to read a novel to respond to you. I'm giving other people I disagree with reasonable replies. Your reply is unreasonable engage with though. Feel free to try again though with a more reasonable response.
I didn't even post that. Very reasonable of you to not pay attention to basic details like who you're responding to.
Almost as if you're simply putting on a facade of open-mindedness to cover for he fact that you will not engage with any ideas more complex than "Russia bad, NATO good".
Ah, sorry, you are right about getting the person wrong. The way lemmy is laid out on the app I'm using doesn't show the post before you, so I just assumed you were the same person.
In any case, that doesn't change what I said. I'm not going to read a novel then dissect it piece by piece when the premise of the entire post is "going to war and forcefully occupying a neighboring country can be justified."
I'm not saying all of Russia is bad, by the way. I admire Russia for a lot of reasons. The decision to invade their neighbor, however, cannot be justified, in the same way that the vast majority of the United States' wars cannot be justified.
that post was maybe 1500 words to summarize 100+ years of regional conflict with special attention on the last 10 years written in plain language. no special jargon or references to theoretical concepts. if that's a "novel" for you, it definitely explains your grasp of this situation and affirms the critique that you are willfully ignorant and incapable of analysis beyond "russia bad." and this is why people make fun of libs like you. many libs smugly dismiss conservatives as having "simple/childlike" worldviews and value systems. then they promptly adopt their own perfectly mirrored positions and petulantly stick their fingers in their ears like you're doing here.
By the time you took to read the other posts and wrote the replies saying "not gonna read that" you could easily just read that.
I read it. Same answer I've been giving the whole time still applies. Nothing justifies an invasion and the murder of thousands of civilians. The majority of the Ukrainian people support continuing to defend their homes, including in the eastern regions. It is up to them to decide what they want to do. If they want to concede, they will do that. It's pretty simple.
Anyway, I'm done responding now. Good luck with your lives.
Ukrainians were couped every decade to make them hate Russians. 1991, 2004, 2014, and note how Zelensky was elected as a peace candidate, to stop the civil war. Instead there was a military buildup to invasion and multiple ceasefire breaches. In the meantime between those coups, Ukrainians seemed to gravitate towards at least neutrality and peace. Ukrainians will have been repeatedly violated by USA and now they are dying for Uncle Sam imperial interest while their country is being peacemeal sold for the peanuts and the war fervor as in every war ever fry their brains.
X (this is me doubting BTW)
US Civil War, WWII.
Here's my response. I think it's reasonable enough.
spoiler
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
It's like one page. You asked for an explanation of what's going on. Take it or leave it. Sorry it's not formatted very well I had to type it on the fly at like 3am.
Guys you can't justify a war with hundreds of thousands of deaths where one side is sending missiles at civilian buildings on the daily, it's just not going to happen.
Doesn't stop you libs from trying, free the Donbas
it's more complicated than that and you would understand why we think so if you bothered to read the explanation
Technically it's artillery, but I thought we weren't talking about the civil war in Donbas?
I didin't justify anything. I just told you what happened.
So you're not actually interested in learning anything.
How does that square up with you thinking your worldview is correct?
Like how do you make that work?
deleted by creator
Please do. No investigation no right to speak
No investigation, no right to speak
In 2014, the Ukrainian government was overthrown and the new government shifted towards Western alignment while banning opposition parties. Many people in Ukraine, especially in the east, have cultural ties to Russia and disagreed with the change, but were left with no means of having their voices heard because they were cut out of the democratic process, and that's why the resistance groups exist in the first place.
"I am not debating you."
"Here, now let me debate you."
Ah, by argue I meant something along the lines of "have an upset and angry discussion." I disagree with some of the premise of what he said though, so I am going to push back on that.
history started the day russia invaded and nothing happened in ukraine between then and the collapse of the USSR.
Good point never thought of it like that before. I love Bill Clinton, Neoliberalism is radical. Did you know he played the saxophone? So cool. Slava USA
Ukraine violated the ceasefire and attacked the DPR and LPR days before the invasion happened:
How many guesses do I get?
First guess: China. Bad.
I think my question was misunderstood.
Your original post makes it seem like you think NATO are the bad guys here because they are supplying weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves.
I asked "who attacked who" because to me, it seems pretty clear that Russia, a dictatorship whose government has a history of human rights violations and disregard for human life, is doing a bad thing when they invade a neighboring country and start shooting missiles at civilian homes on a daily basis for a year and half.
Could you explain how this is not a clear "Russia doing bad thing, we should help Ukraine" situation?
NATO is mostly responsible for the dead Ukrainians. Ukraine has no reason to fight this war. If they lose, fine, the Russian part gets renamed and a higher minimum wage. Only rich assholes lose out. If Ukraine wins they get dead sons and burned schools but the US oil companies are happy.
It is pretty clear Ukraine shouldn't be fighting this war for the US companies.
What percentage of Ukrainians support defending their country?
Should it be their decision whether to keep fighting?
If it were up to Ukrainians to collectively decide whether or not to continue the conflict, Zelensky would not have canceled the elections for his position later this year.
The Ukrainian constitution does not allow for elections to be held during periods of martial law, which was declared at the start of the war.
If there is ever a good time to declare martial law, being invaded by a neighboring country might qualify as a justifiable time.
In any case, it's constitutional, but Ukrainian political process isn't what we are here to talk about.
Fundamentally, I agree with you - If the majority of Ukrainians were to decide they don't want the war to continue, the war should stop. The number show, however, that the people are not ready to give up.
The constitution of one of the most corrupt states in Europe has a mechanism whereby the executive can arbitrarily suspend elections?
Shocking.
Again, Ukrainian political process isn’t what we are here to talk about
You don't get to set the topic. If you don't want to discuss it then nobody can compell you to do so. Don't pretend it's irrelevant to the topic you've chosen to engage with just because it's inconvenient for your arugment to engage with it.
No, it's definitely a side topic.
The topic is technically "did China supply Russia with weapons etc?" But the topic we've been talking about for a bit now is "is the invasion justified," not "is the Ukrainian constitution constructed in an ideal way."
The ideal-ness of the constitution has no bearing on whether the invasion was justified, because invading your neighbor and killing thousands of civilians, even if their constitution is not completely ideal, cannot be justified.
I'm officially announcing now that I am going to sleep. Goodnight, and I hope you can all do some reflecting on whether invading neighboring countries is good or bad. I'm done responding to all of this.
No reflection needed. Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin.
Oh no, the topic decider is gone. However will we go on?
Dead people don't get a vote. People lining up to die are even less trust worthy about their choices.
While humorous, that isn't actually how polls work. I'd suggest looking up the statistics. The majority of Ukrainians, even in the Eastern regions, still support defending themselves.
Does that mean that the majority of Ukrainians support fighting the war for the sake of US companies? Or could there be something else they are fighting for?
They are fighting for honor glory and pride. However they will die for it and get none. While all the worst people in mu country will buy a new jetski off the profits they made from the ordeal
Is it possible they are fighting to protect their freedoms and their families? Honor and glory is nice and all but I'd imagine that most of them aren't Game of Thrones characters.
No, none of that is at stake. Russia has better labor rights than Ukraine. So if they cared about their families, especially the people in the region in question, they would be slfighting for russia.
I have to push back on "none of that is at stake."
When Russia sends missiles and drones into Kiev that hit civilian buildings, homes, and kill regular people on a daily/weekly basis, is the message they are receiving "Russia has better labor rights than Ukraine?"
They are at war. That is what happens during war. They are only at stake because there is a war on. If the war stopped those would go away. And as Russia would likely increase thr labor standards in territory under their controll things would improve on every front for the lives of the average Ukrainian if the didn't do the war.
Russian-supported polls can't be trusted, but the targets of 8 years of pogroms definitely aren't be coerced by Ukraine!
nato is willing to fight to the last ukranian, going so far as scuttling peace talks, which you can read about in a ukranian Pravda article about Boris Johnson's visit.
Do you think the people of eastern ukraine have a right to defend themselves?
I understood. It's an unserious question, so I gave an unserious answer. China isn't militarily supporting Russia. They sent some kids toys and the same raw materials they exported everywhere anyway.
Ah, I see what happened. I didn't address the China part of your original question because I actually agree with you there. They aren't militarily supporting Russia based on this article. I don't see why China would do that, since it wouldn't really benefit them.
I was addressing part 2 of your comment, where you implied that NATO is doing a bad thing by supporting Ukraine. Unless I misunderstood - I assumed "They are the good guys trying to end the war" was sarcasm.
Don't bother. There is no actual intelligence or reason there.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/
You're responding to the user who refuses to spend five minutes reading a reply, I think you've misplaced your estimate of intelligence or reason.