It doesn’t matter whose “land” it is, the killing has to stop. If that can be accomplished by moving some imaginary lines on a map, it should be done immediately.
How many Ukranians are you, from the comfort of home, willing to sacrifice to support whatever principle you believe is at issue here? If a million more die in this war, will it still be worth it? Two million?
It's never simple but it is a land grab. De facto - Russia didn't have it before they sent in the troops.
I'm not willing to sacrifice any. I don't like imperialism whether by NATO or Russia. I don't like how Ukraine was run before the invasion. I don't like that my country, USA, is funding wars around the world but this situation isn't as simple as US bad, Russia good. Russia is the obvious aggressor here again Ukraine though.
Russia did have parts of Ukraine, and those parts were then couped in 2014. But of course, history goes further than 2014 - both countries have wrestled for it for over a hundred years. I don't know my medieval history, but I do know that Ukraine was mostly under the rule of Russian royalty from the 1700s onwards.
I would say the turning point, and when medieval history becomes contemporary was when the Russian Revolution took control of Russia from the Tsars. The White Army (Tsarists, enslavers of peasantry) then retreated to Ukraine and collaborated with other Empires of the day to attempt to reinstall themselves as rulers of Russia.
They continued to attack the Russian revolution, so war was waged against them in Ukraine to get rid of them. Other peasant groups fought against them too. The first World War complicates things, but The White Army's remaining forces eventually lost. There's more wrestling for the land between Anarchists and Communists and European capitalist forces. The Makhnovist Anarchists eventually were defeated or subsumed by Bolsheviks, and Ukraine joined Russia as a republic.
The next change of leadership comes with Nazi Occupation.
Nazis waged war against Russia from Ukraine and has collaborators. The Nazis eventually lose, and the USSR takes control of the region again to de nazify it. In this time after the war, the CIA arms Nazis and spreads right wing propaganda in the region through operations such as Bloodstone and Red Sox.
Time goes by, and the Soviet Union collapses. Ukraine becomes fully autonomous for the first time in about 200 years. The west continues to use Ukraine as a bulwark against now capitalist Russia, in an attempt to make sure Russia doesn't become a global power again and disrupt their hegemony. From here on out it's capitalist warfare between Russia and Ukraine/The West. Russia tries to stake it's claim in certain Ukrainian lands where there is a Russian ethnic majority and independence movement. Then there's crisis in 2004, and then eventual derussification policies lead up to the 2014 western backed coup against the Russian majority regions by way of installing a puppet leader.
So who really has a right to it? I don't take either side, but I do think that the Russian regions will be more prosperous if they are taken back by Russia. Ukraine post war will be a total wasteland of western 'development' - there will be no social safety net and it will be full of Nazis.
You either drank the NATO kool aid, or you're not engaging in good faith. The situation is what it is, Westerners are kicking back in their armchairs and sending thousands of Ukrainians to die over farmhouses in Bakhmut; it doesn't matter if there could be some noble justification that maybe, just maybe, the next human wave Ukraine sends will get Russia to back off. If you don't want to "allow" Russian aggression, how about you don't engage in a decade of expansionist brinkmanship?
The expansion of NATO by means of economic diplomacy is not at the same level of human misery as what Russia is doing militarily. Yes, yes, capitalism is exploitative, I'm not denying that, I just don't think that Russia should get a free pass to invade.
How do you reconcile Putin's previously expressed desire to possibly join NATO? https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-says-discussed-joining-nato-with-clinton/28526757.html
I don't disagree, Russia has no right to continue (or to have started) the war either. But what I think about Russia doesn't matter, what matters is we are workers in countries that are bankrolling Ukraine in the war and we can have meaningful political impact on the war by dismissing false consciousness. I can't do anything to get Putin to stop the war. But if enough workers in NATO aligned countries make it clear they won't stand for the ransacking of Ukraine, the war machine won't be able to keep moving without its gears.
Anyway, I think Putin was pretty naive to want to join NATO lol. It's a big club, and Russia ain't in it (by design).
You're insinuating that I asked a loaded question but that's BS. Russia attempted and failed to take Kyiv. That's more than just trying to secure ethnically Russian lands. That is blatant aggression.
Apparently you're not aware of NATO's long history of working to emisserate and rob people in Russia and the rest of the former USSR, so I'm curious to know why you think they're bad. Actually, I'm not curious. From the bottom of my heart, I don't care.
So far they've taken the land they claimed they wanted before the war and have now dug in and are just defending the land theyve taken so how about that much.
How much aggression and brinksmanship should Natoma be allowed since we're doing hypotheticals?
But you're ignoring that Russia tried to take Kyiv and failed. This is not a hypothetical but pretty clearly more than just securing ethnically Russian lands and were instead trying to take all of Ukraine for the perceived threat of NATO. NATO hasn't militarily moved on Russian and had actually opening up economically (yes, through capitalism and exploitation but we can't expect a scorpion to not sting).
How much brinkmanship should be allowed by NATO? As long as they aren't directly invading other countries I'm willing to give them more leeway than Russian. Both suck.
Yea when you're doing an offensive you target command centers farther into the country doesn't mean they're trying to take the city.
Ukraine has struck Russian cities during their "counteroffensive" does that mean they're actually just using this a stepping stone to invade Russia.
How much brinkmanship should be allowed by NATO? As long as they aren't directly invading other countries I'm willing to give them more leeway than Russian. Both suck
Ok if your position is "as long as there aren't literally nato boots on the ground nothing they do is out of line" im going to completely disregard ypur opinion because tou just admitted your a hypocrite. So by your rules america was wrong to get upset about the ussr wanting to put nukes on cuba? Because apparently thats a-ok since there werent literally russian boots on americas mainland.
Seems like americas foreign policy would disagree with you there based on thebfactvwr almost started a wprld war over it.
Mostly pro-Russian areas go to Russia and the war ends? Yeah sounds fine to me. I would say it doesn't make all that much a difference which capitalist oligarchy they're living under, but Ukraine is probably going to be fucked over economically by the West (while trying to recover from the war) for long after the war is over, so being part of Russia is probably better for the people. Ukraine has already started privatizing assets they don't even control. Also the Nazis probably won't take too kindly to the people who accepted Russian rule in order to live their lives like normal ("collaborators"), so throwing them into the hands of those Nazis might not be great.
I don't know what Russia is willing to accept at this point, but best case for Ukraine is giving up Crimea, getting the rest of the land back, and giving autonomy to the Donbass. Which yeah that might be alright too, except for the concerns I gave above. There would definitely need to be some guarantee for the safety of the people in those regions, especially the DPR and LPR. I doubt Russia would accept that anyway. They would have at the beginning of the war, but probably not now.
Russia should actually take more. Odessa and all of the Donbas. Ukraine should be landlocked, regime changed and kept perpetually de-militarized. If they try to ever join NATO again they should be destroyed again and another half their land taken. Repeat until they learn their lesson and stop trying to join NATO.
What does the average hexbear user think should happen in Ukraine? Should Russia keep the land that they have gotten?
It doesn’t matter whose “land” it is, the killing has to stop. If that can be accomplished by moving some imaginary lines on a map, it should be done immediately.
Sounds good but we know it doesn't work that way, yet. How much aggression and land grabbing should Russia be allowed?
It's never simple but it is a land grab. De facto - Russia didn't have it before they sent in the troops.
I'm not willing to sacrifice any. I don't like imperialism whether by NATO or Russia. I don't like how Ukraine was run before the invasion. I don't like that my country, USA, is funding wars around the world but this situation isn't as simple as US bad, Russia good. Russia is the obvious aggressor here again Ukraine though.
How much Russian aggression is the right amount?
Russia did have parts of Ukraine, and those parts were then couped in 2014. But of course, history goes further than 2014 - both countries have wrestled for it for over a hundred years. I don't know my medieval history, but I do know that Ukraine was mostly under the rule of Russian royalty from the 1700s onwards.
I would say the turning point, and when medieval history becomes contemporary was when the Russian Revolution took control of Russia from the Tsars. The White Army (Tsarists, enslavers of peasantry) then retreated to Ukraine and collaborated with other Empires of the day to attempt to reinstall themselves as rulers of Russia.
They continued to attack the Russian revolution, so war was waged against them in Ukraine to get rid of them. Other peasant groups fought against them too. The first World War complicates things, but The White Army's remaining forces eventually lost. There's more wrestling for the land between Anarchists and Communists and European capitalist forces. The Makhnovist Anarchists eventually were defeated or subsumed by Bolsheviks, and Ukraine joined Russia as a republic.
The next change of leadership comes with Nazi Occupation.
Nazis waged war against Russia from Ukraine and has collaborators. The Nazis eventually lose, and the USSR takes control of the region again to de nazify it. In this time after the war, the CIA arms Nazis and spreads right wing propaganda in the region through operations such as Bloodstone and Red Sox.
Time goes by, and the Soviet Union collapses. Ukraine becomes fully autonomous for the first time in about 200 years. The west continues to use Ukraine as a bulwark against now capitalist Russia, in an attempt to make sure Russia doesn't become a global power again and disrupt their hegemony. From here on out it's capitalist warfare between Russia and Ukraine/The West. Russia tries to stake it's claim in certain Ukrainian lands where there is a Russian ethnic majority and independence movement. Then there's crisis in 2004, and then eventual derussification policies lead up to the 2014 western backed coup against the Russian majority regions by way of installing a puppet leader.
So who really has a right to it? I don't take either side, but I do think that the Russian regions will be more prosperous if they are taken back by Russia. Ukraine post war will be a total wasteland of western 'development' - there will be no social safety net and it will be full of Nazis.
deleted by creator
You either drank the NATO kool aid, or you're not engaging in good faith. The situation is what it is, Westerners are kicking back in their armchairs and sending thousands of Ukrainians to die over farmhouses in Bakhmut; it doesn't matter if there could be some noble justification that maybe, just maybe, the next human wave Ukraine sends will get Russia to back off. If you don't want to "allow" Russian aggression, how about you don't engage in a decade of expansionist brinkmanship?
The expansion of NATO by means of economic diplomacy is not at the same level of human misery as what Russia is doing militarily. Yes, yes, capitalism is exploitative, I'm not denying that, I just don't think that Russia should get a free pass to invade.
How do you reconcile Putin's previously expressed desire to possibly join NATO? https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-says-discussed-joining-nato-with-clinton/28526757.html
I don't disagree, Russia has no right to continue (or to have started) the war either. But what I think about Russia doesn't matter, what matters is we are workers in countries that are bankrolling Ukraine in the war and we can have meaningful political impact on the war by dismissing false consciousness. I can't do anything to get Putin to stop the war. But if enough workers in NATO aligned countries make it clear they won't stand for the ransacking of Ukraine, the war machine won't be able to keep moving without its gears.
Anyway, I think Putin was pretty naive to want to join NATO lol. It's a big club, and Russia ain't in it (by design).
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Senator?
You're insinuating that I asked a loaded question but that's BS. Russia attempted and failed to take Kyiv. That's more than just trying to secure ethnically Russian lands. That is blatant aggression.
As much as it takes to protect them from NATO.
And when was the last time that NATO invaded Russia?
Putin floated the idea of joining NATO but didn't like the requirements. Russia imperialism is well known and obvious.
I don't get this defending of Russia by leftists. Both NATO and Russia are bad in this case.
Apparently you're not aware of NATO's long history of working to emisserate and rob people in Russia and the rest of the former USSR, so I'm curious to know why you think they're bad. Actually, I'm not curious. From the bottom of my heart, I don't care.
So far they've taken the land they claimed they wanted before the war and have now dug in and are just defending the land theyve taken so how about that much.
How much aggression and brinksmanship should Natoma be allowed since we're doing hypotheticals?
But you're ignoring that Russia tried to take Kyiv and failed. This is not a hypothetical but pretty clearly more than just securing ethnically Russian lands and were instead trying to take all of Ukraine for the perceived threat of NATO. NATO hasn't militarily moved on Russian and had actually opening up economically (yes, through capitalism and exploitation but we can't expect a scorpion to not sting).
How much brinkmanship should be allowed by NATO? As long as they aren't directly invading other countries I'm willing to give them more leeway than Russian. Both suck.
Yea when you're doing an offensive you target command centers farther into the country doesn't mean they're trying to take the city.
Ukraine has struck Russian cities during their "counteroffensive" does that mean they're actually just using this a stepping stone to invade Russia.
Ok if your position is "as long as there aren't literally nato boots on the ground nothing they do is out of line" im going to completely disregard ypur opinion because tou just admitted your a hypocrite. So by your rules america was wrong to get upset about the ussr wanting to put nukes on cuba? Because apparently thats a-ok since there werent literally russian boots on americas mainland.
Seems like americas foreign policy would disagree with you there based on thebfactvwr almost started a wprld war over it.
Mostly pro-Russian areas go to Russia and the war ends? Yeah sounds fine to me. I would say it doesn't make all that much a difference which capitalist oligarchy they're living under, but Ukraine is probably going to be fucked over economically by the West (while trying to recover from the war) for long after the war is over, so being part of Russia is probably better for the people. Ukraine has already started privatizing assets they don't even control. Also the Nazis probably won't take too kindly to the people who accepted Russian rule in order to live their lives like normal ("collaborators"), so throwing them into the hands of those Nazis might not be great.
I don't know what Russia is willing to accept at this point, but best case for Ukraine is giving up Crimea, getting the rest of the land back, and giving autonomy to the Donbass. Which yeah that might be alright too, except for the concerns I gave above. There would definitely need to be some guarantee for the safety of the people in those regions, especially the DPR and LPR. I doubt Russia would accept that anyway. They would have at the beginning of the war, but probably not now.
should doesn't really factor into it they're going to keep it because they have it and no one can make them give it back
Russia should actually take more. Odessa and all of the Donbas. Ukraine should be landlocked, regime changed and kept perpetually de-militarized. If they try to ever join NATO again they should be destroyed again and another half their land taken. Repeat until they learn their lesson and stop trying to join NATO.
deleted by creator
Self determination be damned. Be reliant on what other capitalist countries determine is the best course?
That is a horrible leftist take.