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.
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?
Those Ukrainians have failed to stop the other Ukrainians. The Donbas has a large population that identify as russian, and the regions are on the border of Russia. Most countries do no like it when there's a war going on at their border.
It's much more complicated than that of course, but these were some of the reasons that made Russia step in and negotiate the Minsk I and II treaties
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.
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?
Those Ukrainians have failed to stop the other Ukrainians. The Donbas has a large population that identify as russian, and the regions are on the border of Russia. Most countries do no like it when there's a war going on at their border.
It's much more complicated than that of course, but these were some of the reasons that made Russia step in and negotiate the Minsk I and II treaties
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.