7 ms·

I’ve never thought I would be ambivalent towards a war. But here we are. Living in Asia there is definitely not the staunch apposition to the war that you mig

I’ve never thought I would be ambivalent towards a war. But here we are. Living in Asia there is definitely not the staunch apposition to the war that you might expect to see. People here don’t like it but are not lockstep on Ukraines side. And as a so called and derided “red pilled” guy I’m not going to jump to any conclusions for the next year or so. We’ve all been seen the ultimate truth and aims and outcomes of the last half dozen wars involving the USA. Once you live abroad for a significant amount of time you tend to take off the rah rah USA rose colored glasses and see the world from the point of view of other peoples. A very annoying thing about the news and SJW social media is everyone jumping on the Ukraine bandwagon with nary a thought as to why what is happening… is happening.

chinathrow 4y ago
Not sure if I should reply to you, but in this war, it's crystal clear who annexed what first and who invaded when and where.
- eric4smith 4y ago
  Any idiot knows what happened. Duh. Not many people are asking WHY its happening.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    This is an entirely self-serving claim for which you have presented no evidence. Furthermore, it is quite possible to see that the stated reasons are nonsense without having to know precisely what the real motives are.
  - sidibe 4y ago
    Well, you don't need to ask or dig too deep. Putin doesn't believe in Ukraine's sovereignty. The annexation happened when Ukrainians decided Putin doesn't get an unofficial veto on their EU candidacy.
- yucky 4y ago
  What happened in the days prior to Russia annexing Crimea, that led up to it?
  - chinathrow 4y ago
    Enlighten us? Nothing warrants or excuses the annexion of Crimea.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Do you think the invasion and annexation of Crimea, had anything to do with the coup (ahem...pro-US/NATO revolution) that had just occurred in Ukraine[1]? Keep in mind Putin rolled his tanks into Crimea the day after the new pro-US/NATO regime in Ukraine had thrown out the democratically elected (albeit pro-Russia) government, and rewritten the Ukrainian Constitution[2] to then make it possible to drop neutrality[3] so that they could begin the process of joining NATO. A rule to join NATO is that a nation must be in control of its borders and not in active conflict, so by annexing Crimea, Russia ensured the moves to join NATO would be halted with that action. Understanding cause and effect is not the same as excusing it. If I poke a bear with a stick, and the bear eats me, it's my fault. Just because the bear went a little overboard doesn't change the fact that it's a bear and I should know not to poke it with a stick. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-constitution-idUSBREA1K17420140221 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-constituti... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-30594763 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-30594763
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        Almost verbatim identical to your last emission of this "coup" talking point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001317 and the time before that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30887629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30887629 Not to forget: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653796 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30648054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30648054
cutler 4y ago
And why do you think it's happening?
- eric4smith 4y ago
  I’m Not sure. Can you say you know for sure why it’s happening??
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    Because Putin is an idiot. If they come out victorious, I will stand corrected. But if it means Russia is going faster down the drain, I'm probably spot on. He doesn't like NATO, so his strategy is to invade a non-NATO neighbour. What an idiot. Now all of a sudden, all neighbouring non-NATO countries want to join NATO. What a surprise. Finland applied already, Sweden later this year. Deals with EU were going great, especially with Germany that is highly dependent on Russian gas. Consequence of the war: EU kicks out (of phases out) economic trade. Nice one. If Russia hates US so much, why don't they collaborate more with EU? A strong EU-Russia relationship could match US in any sense. But no, Russia prefers to behave like an aggressive lunatic. EU was very much open to work together, see Germany. Now it is clear that was a big mistake. So yeah, it's because he's an aggressive idiot lunatic.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > Putin is an idiot. > he's an aggressive idiot lunatic. I think there are two mistakes here: 1. Personalising it as being about Putin. 2. Characterising Putin as being stupid or mad. Nearly everything that Russia (not Putin) has done has been pre-announced by the Russian leadership. In fact, most of the pre-announcement has been by Putin himself, and I wonder whether his generals think that's a good idea. NATO has treated those announcements as bullying bluster; they were wrong. Most of those announcements were based on long-established Russian or Soviet military doctrine. If anyone's an idiot, it's NATO leadership, for assuming it was all bluster. Characterising your enemy as a mad fool is a standard propaganda technique. There are reasons why the invasion is happening now, not sooner and not later. Both Ukraine and Georgia have loudly declared their desire to join NATO and the EU; it's obvious that Russia would very much prefer not to have NATO on his border. If Russia thinks it needs to invade Ukraine, then it needed to be done now. Similarly, the cancellation of Nordstream II, and the increased deployment of renewables in Europe threatens Russia's economy. The Russian treasury is flush now, but even setting aside sanctions, it won't be for long. Putin certainly has some odd beliefs, such as his views about the historical destiny of the Rus people. But basing claims to land on historical destiny isn't unique to Russia; there are long-standing US allies that make similar claims (Israel?).
jdrc 4y ago
most of the opposition comes from distrust of the US, not because of consideration of the objective fact that russia intends to extinguish a sovereign state. If you are ambivalent about whether the latter is wrong, then thats pretty much a nonstarter
jacquesm 4y ago
For me it is the opposite: for the first time in a long time I see very clearly who in this war is the instigator and who are the defenders. Not since WW2 has there been a war where for me this is that clear.
- azth 4y ago
  > Not since WW2 has there been a war where for me this is that clear. The continuous colonialism of Western nations to African and Middle Eastern countries? The Zionist occupation of Palestine? The US led invasions on Iraq and Afghanistan? Just to name a few.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    All of those are in areas that are not and have not been peaceful if left to their own devices. I was as much against the invasion in Iraq as anybody around me that I know, I felt it was done on a pretext and still think that the whole way this was sold to the world was disgusting, but the United States did not invade Iraq to permanently occupy it (at least, I don't think it did). As for Western nations in African and Middle Eastern countries: again, for the most part despicable but here too I don't see these as wars of conquest or ways to commit genocide by the West. That does not mean that what they are doing there is in general defensible but there are so many sides to those conflicts that clarity isn't always easy to come by, even the locals disagree on whether or not the Western involvement is a blessing or a curse, and it isn't rare for those sides to change as a conflict evolves. The 'Zionist occupation of Palestine' as presented is already evidence of picking a side. Personally, and I'm not making any friends with this, I think the founding of the state of Israel and the preceding Balfour declaration were misguided - some of my Jewish friends agree with this - and the state of apartheid there is one that I can not and will not subscribe to. The behavior of Israel is unacceptable and I have no illusions that it is only the United States veto in the security council that stands between Israel and much wider condemnation of how they are behaving there. I do not believe that Israel as a state will survive unless they - and the Arab world around them - will find a way to effectively bury the past, and with every bullet fired and person killed that gets harder and harder. I do not subscribe to the Jewish people having an innate right to certain parts of the world based on religious texts from 4000 years ago, nor do I believe that to commit the same wrongs against people that others have committed to you make a right or can ever lead to an improvement. But, and this is my point: in all of these situations there is are many factors at play that make me believe that some or all of the problems exhibited or some other form of discord or violence would be present in those regions, and in some cases that may have been far worse than what is going on there now. Compared to Urkraine vs Russia these are all areas that are most likely going to be at war in one way or another with each other or internally regardless of what the West does to either pick sides or to try to improve things, it's at best meddling and at worst neo colonialism or patronization. None of that however stops me from deciding - purely for myself - that these conflicts are too complex for me to fully appreciate all of the nuances and all of the aspects of the parties involved, in part because I do not know enough about the regions - though I know more about them than the people that I normally interact with -, I don't feel I'm on solid ground other than to roughly understand the basics and to draw coarse conclusions (see above for some of those). But the degree of clarity with which I find myself judging Russia for the active destruction of a country closely aligned with Western Europe, a country close to Western Europe, a country that was party to more than one binding agreement and treaty which it did not violate is substantially larger. I hope that clarifies my position enough for you to understand why this is different for me.
causi 4y ago
why what is happening… is happening It's because Ukraine contains three of the nine "gap" invasion pathways into Russia and demographic collapse means if Russia doesn't take those gaps back now they won't be able to field an army to do so in the future. They had all of them before the Soviet Union fell. Invading Georgia gave them back one. Taking Crimea gave them back another. Taking the rest of Ukraine will give them two more.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  And failing to take the rest of Ukraine might lose them one eventually.
  - causi 4y ago
    A serious danger is that Putin deciding it's worth a war to take the Bessarabian Gap indicates he might think it's worth a war to take the baltic sea coast. https://i.imgur.com/0fIjhmB.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0fIjhmB.jpg
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Yes, I've been saying that for 20 years. I have a lot of interests and family in the Baltics and NE Poland and this is a main point of worry for me. Russia could make a play for the Suwalki gap in a day or two at most, and then we'd have a real problem.
- jotm 4y ago
  Everyone saying this ignores the nuclear arsenal. Which Russia constantly reminds everyone of, to the point of no one taking them seriously anymore. If anyone decides to invade Russia, they better be super sure about their anti-ICBM capabilities. Just one warhead going through the defense means a leveled city. So, 200k-1million+ casualties. So, who's taking that chance? For what?
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Nobody is taking that chance. At the moment. But if Russia shows that they are willing to use their nuclear weapons to the point that it becomes believable that they will do so anyway then we are in completely uncharted territory. Note that this war isn't over yet and that Putin has threatened multiple times now more or less obliquely that he would not hesitate to use nuclear arms in a first strike situation for whatever pretext he seems to think is enough. This was then later walked back again by other Russian functionaries but the damage is already mostly done: Russia is no longer believable, and apparently nuclear first strikes for pretexts are on the table.
mannykannot 4y ago
This seems to be quite a common view: "I'm not upset by the invasion of Ukraine because the US has done a bunch of bad things." Bringing the US into the issue seems to be quite the non-sequitur - is self-determinancy a concept that can only be viewed through the lens of US imperialism? Are the rights of Ukrainians (and other states bordering Russia) merely a construct of US policy? Suppose the US currently had in place an administration which took an isolationist, ambivalent or even "Putin has valid concerns" attitude - this is hardly a speculative leap - would your attitude change? If there is nothing to see in what is happening in Ukraine, why would US imperialism bother you?
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > This seems to be quite a common view: "I'm not upset by the invasion of Ukraine because the US has done a bunch of bad things." There's a history to this "What about this other thing" distraction / derailing technique, and it was fairly common from Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Soviet_Union_and_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Soviet_Union_and_... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-soviet-era-strategy-that-explains-what-russia-is-doing-with-snowden/278314/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/th...
Isinlor 4y ago
Poland and Ukraine had the same size economy in 1991 after collapse of the Soviet Union. Last year Polish economy was 3 times bigger than Ukraine. Ukrainians want the same economic success as Poland and they think that membership in EU was instrumental. If Ukraine succeeds then people of Belarus and Russia will want it too. But Putin does not want to give up power, so he attacks Ukraine. There - that's the reason. Fear of successful Ukraine. Putin quoted a song during press conference with Emmanuel Macron in early February about Ukraine: "Whether you like it or don't like it, bear with it, my beauty." The full quote from "Sleeping beauty in a coffin" song by Red Mold would be: Sleeping beauty in a coffin, I crept up and fucked her. Like it, or dislike it, sleep my beauty. That gives you the mindset of Putin with regard to Ukraine. Also, some personal note - my grandmother as a little girl had to hide from Russian speaking soldiers who were raping women and girls in my home town during "liberation" of Poland from Germany at the end of WWII. The stories from Ukraine are exactly the same as what my grandmother lived trough.
heneryville 4y ago
That this is a battle between the USA and Russia is propaganda. Pushing that message allows a kind of moral ambivalence. But that's not the truth. This is a brutal invasion of a smaller weaker country by its neighbor. Despite all the fog of war, that much is clear. Claiming that nothing can be known at this point is denies that facts that are readily accessible now, of which there are plenty. If you don't trust news or social media, that's fine. There are facts out there ready to be found in other ways. There are thousands of twitter feeds, embedded journalist, first person accounts, etc. But if you're not wiling to look for facts, and not willing to receive them from reputable summary sources, then you're an easy target for these kinds of propaganda tricks.

chinathrow 4y ago

Not sure if I should reply to you, but in this war, it's crystal clear who annexed what first and who invaded when and where.

eric4smith 4y ago
Any idiot knows what happened. Duh. Not many people are asking WHY its happening.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  This is an entirely self-serving claim for which you have presented no evidence. Furthermore, it is quite possible to see that the stated reasons are nonsense without having to know precisely what the real motives are.
- sidibe 4y ago
  Well, you don't need to ask or dig too deep. Putin doesn't believe in Ukraine's sovereignty. The annexation happened when Ukrainians decided Putin doesn't get an unofficial veto on their EU candidacy.
yucky 4y ago
What happened in the days prior to Russia annexing Crimea, that led up to it?
- chinathrow 4y ago
  Enlighten us? Nothing warrants or excuses the annexion of Crimea.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Do you think the invasion and annexation of Crimea, had anything to do with the coup (ahem...pro-US/NATO revolution) that had just occurred in Ukraine[1]? Keep in mind Putin rolled his tanks into Crimea the day after the new pro-US/NATO regime in Ukraine had thrown out the democratically elected (albeit pro-Russia) government, and rewritten the Ukrainian Constitution[2] to then make it possible to drop neutrality[3] so that they could begin the process of joining NATO. A rule to join NATO is that a nation must be in control of its borders and not in active conflict, so by annexing Crimea, Russia ensured the moves to join NATO would be halted with that action. Understanding cause and effect is not the same as excusing it. If I poke a bear with a stick, and the bear eats me, it's my fault. Just because the bear went a little overboard doesn't change the fact that it's a bear and I should know not to poke it with a stick. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-constitution-idUSBREA1K17420140221 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-constituti... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-30594763 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-30594763
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      Almost verbatim identical to your last emission of this "coup" talking point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001317 and the time before that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30887629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30887629 Not to forget: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653796 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30648054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30648054

cutler 4y ago

And why do you think it's happening?

eric4smith 4y ago
I’m Not sure. Can you say you know for sure why it’s happening??
- koonsolo 4y ago
  Because Putin is an idiot. If they come out victorious, I will stand corrected. But if it means Russia is going faster down the drain, I'm probably spot on. He doesn't like NATO, so his strategy is to invade a non-NATO neighbour. What an idiot. Now all of a sudden, all neighbouring non-NATO countries want to join NATO. What a surprise. Finland applied already, Sweden later this year. Deals with EU were going great, especially with Germany that is highly dependent on Russian gas. Consequence of the war: EU kicks out (of phases out) economic trade. Nice one. If Russia hates US so much, why don't they collaborate more with EU? A strong EU-Russia relationship could match US in any sense. But no, Russia prefers to behave like an aggressive lunatic. EU was very much open to work together, see Germany. Now it is clear that was a big mistake. So yeah, it's because he's an aggressive idiot lunatic.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > Putin is an idiot. > he's an aggressive idiot lunatic. I think there are two mistakes here: 1. Personalising it as being about Putin. 2. Characterising Putin as being stupid or mad. Nearly everything that Russia (not Putin) has done has been pre-announced by the Russian leadership. In fact, most of the pre-announcement has been by Putin himself, and I wonder whether his generals think that's a good idea. NATO has treated those announcements as bullying bluster; they were wrong. Most of those announcements were based on long-established Russian or Soviet military doctrine. If anyone's an idiot, it's NATO leadership, for assuming it was all bluster. Characterising your enemy as a mad fool is a standard propaganda technique. There are reasons why the invasion is happening now, not sooner and not later. Both Ukraine and Georgia have loudly declared their desire to join NATO and the EU; it's obvious that Russia would very much prefer not to have NATO on his border. If Russia thinks it needs to invade Ukraine, then it needed to be done now. Similarly, the cancellation of Nordstream II, and the increased deployment of renewables in Europe threatens Russia's economy. The Russian treasury is flush now, but even setting aside sanctions, it won't be for long. Putin certainly has some odd beliefs, such as his views about the historical destiny of the Rus people. But basing claims to land on historical destiny isn't unique to Russia; there are long-standing US allies that make similar claims (Israel?).

jdrc 4y ago

most of the opposition comes from distrust of the US, not because of consideration of the objective fact that russia intends to extinguish a sovereign state. If you are ambivalent about whether the latter is wrong, then thats pretty much a nonstarter

jacquesm 4y ago

For me it is the opposite: for the first time in a long time I see very clearly who in this war is the instigator and who are the defenders. Not since WW2 has there been a war where for me this is that clear.

azth 4y ago
> Not since WW2 has there been a war where for me this is that clear. The continuous colonialism of Western nations to African and Middle Eastern countries? The Zionist occupation of Palestine? The US led invasions on Iraq and Afghanistan? Just to name a few.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  All of those are in areas that are not and have not been peaceful if left to their own devices. I was as much against the invasion in Iraq as anybody around me that I know, I felt it was done on a pretext and still think that the whole way this was sold to the world was disgusting, but the United States did not invade Iraq to permanently occupy it (at least, I don't think it did). As for Western nations in African and Middle Eastern countries: again, for the most part despicable but here too I don't see these as wars of conquest or ways to commit genocide by the West. That does not mean that what they are doing there is in general defensible but there are so many sides to those conflicts that clarity isn't always easy to come by, even the locals disagree on whether or not the Western involvement is a blessing or a curse, and it isn't rare for those sides to change as a conflict evolves. The 'Zionist occupation of Palestine' as presented is already evidence of picking a side. Personally, and I'm not making any friends with this, I think the founding of the state of Israel and the preceding Balfour declaration were misguided - some of my Jewish friends agree with this - and the state of apartheid there is one that I can not and will not subscribe to. The behavior of Israel is unacceptable and I have no illusions that it is only the United States veto in the security council that stands between Israel and much wider condemnation of how they are behaving there. I do not believe that Israel as a state will survive unless they - and the Arab world around them - will find a way to effectively bury the past, and with every bullet fired and person killed that gets harder and harder. I do not subscribe to the Jewish people having an innate right to certain parts of the world based on religious texts from 4000 years ago, nor do I believe that to commit the same wrongs against people that others have committed to you make a right or can ever lead to an improvement. But, and this is my point: in all of these situations there is are many factors at play that make me believe that some or all of the problems exhibited or some other form of discord or violence would be present in those regions, and in some cases that may have been far worse than what is going on there now. Compared to Urkraine vs Russia these are all areas that are most likely going to be at war in one way or another with each other or internally regardless of what the West does to either pick sides or to try to improve things, it's at best meddling and at worst neo colonialism or patronization. None of that however stops me from deciding - purely for myself - that these conflicts are too complex for me to fully appreciate all of the nuances and all of the aspects of the parties involved, in part because I do not know enough about the regions - though I know more about them than the people that I normally interact with -, I don't feel I'm on solid ground other than to roughly understand the basics and to draw coarse conclusions (see above for some of those). But the degree of clarity with which I find myself judging Russia for the active destruction of a country closely aligned with Western Europe, a country close to Western Europe, a country that was party to more than one binding agreement and treaty which it did not violate is substantially larger. I hope that clarifies my position enough for you to understand why this is different for me.

causi 4y ago

why what is happening… is happening It's because Ukraine contains three of the nine "gap" invasion pathways into Russia and demographic collapse means if Russia doesn't take those gaps back now they won't be able to field an army to do so in the future. They had all of them before the Soviet Union fell. Invading Georgia gave them back one. Taking Crimea gave them back another. Taking the rest of Ukraine will give them two more.

jacquesm 4y ago
And failing to take the rest of Ukraine might lose them one eventually.
- causi 4y ago
  A serious danger is that Putin deciding it's worth a war to take the Bessarabian Gap indicates he might think it's worth a war to take the baltic sea coast. https://i.imgur.com/0fIjhmB.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0fIjhmB.jpg
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Yes, I've been saying that for 20 years. I have a lot of interests and family in the Baltics and NE Poland and this is a main point of worry for me. Russia could make a play for the Suwalki gap in a day or two at most, and then we'd have a real problem.
jotm 4y ago
Everyone saying this ignores the nuclear arsenal. Which Russia constantly reminds everyone of, to the point of no one taking them seriously anymore. If anyone decides to invade Russia, they better be super sure about their anti-ICBM capabilities. Just one warhead going through the defense means a leveled city. So, 200k-1million+ casualties. So, who's taking that chance? For what?
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Nobody is taking that chance. At the moment. But if Russia shows that they are willing to use their nuclear weapons to the point that it becomes believable that they will do so anyway then we are in completely uncharted territory. Note that this war isn't over yet and that Putin has threatened multiple times now more or less obliquely that he would not hesitate to use nuclear arms in a first strike situation for whatever pretext he seems to think is enough. This was then later walked back again by other Russian functionaries but the damage is already mostly done: Russia is no longer believable, and apparently nuclear first strikes for pretexts are on the table.

mannykannot 4y ago

This seems to be quite a common view: "I'm not upset by the invasion of Ukraine because the US has done a bunch of bad things." Bringing the US into the issue seems to be quite the non-sequitur - is self-determinancy a concept that can only be viewed through the lens of US imperialism? Are the rights of Ukrainians (and other states bordering Russia) merely a construct of US policy? Suppose the US currently had in place an administration which took an isolationist, ambivalent or even "Putin has valid concerns" attitude - this is hardly a speculative leap - would your attitude change? If there is nothing to see in what is happening in Ukraine, why would US imperialism bother you?

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> This seems to be quite a common view: "I'm not upset by the invasion of Ukraine because the US has done a bunch of bad things." There's a history to this "What about this other thing" distraction / derailing technique, and it was fairly common from Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Soviet_Union_and_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Soviet_Union_and_... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-soviet-era-strategy-that-explains-what-russia-is-doing-with-snowden/278314/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/th...

Isinlor 4y ago

Poland and Ukraine had the same size economy in 1991 after collapse of the Soviet Union. Last year Polish economy was 3 times bigger than Ukraine. Ukrainians want the same economic success as Poland and they think that membership in EU was instrumental. If Ukraine succeeds then people of Belarus and Russia will want it too. But Putin does not want to give up power, so he attacks Ukraine. There - that's the reason. Fear of successful Ukraine. Putin quoted a song during press conference with Emmanuel Macron in early February about Ukraine: "Whether you like it or don't like it, bear with it, my beauty." The full quote from "Sleeping beauty in a coffin" song by Red Mold would be: Sleeping beauty in a coffin, I crept up and fucked her. Like it, or dislike it, sleep my beauty. That gives you the mindset of Putin with regard to Ukraine. Also, some personal note - my grandmother as a little girl had to hide from Russian speaking soldiers who were raping women and girls in my home town during "liberation" of Poland from Germany at the end of WWII. The stories from Ukraine are exactly the same as what my grandmother lived trough.

heneryville 4y ago

That this is a battle between the USA and Russia is propaganda. Pushing that message allows a kind of moral ambivalence. But that's not the truth. This is a brutal invasion of a smaller weaker country by its neighbor. Despite all the fog of war, that much is clear. Claiming that nothing can be known at this point is denies that facts that are readily accessible now, of which there are plenty. If you don't trust news or social media, that's fine. There are facts out there ready to be found in other ways. There are thousands of twitter feeds, embedded journalist, first person accounts, etc. But if you're not wiling to look for facts, and not willing to receive them from reputable summary sources, then you're an easy target for these kinds of propaganda tricks.