4 ms·

I think you're missing that what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine or whether Russia should. I think you can be an anti-

by zosima 4y ago

I think you're missing that what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine or whether Russia should. I think you can be an anti-imperialist and not have a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine. And you can be against the war, and against imperialism and so naturally be against arming Ukraine to keep the war going and becoming even more vile and bloody.

macintux 4y ago
As the letter states, what you’re effectively denying is Ukrainian self-determination and agency. Does the U.S. “control” France? Germany? Clearly not.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  The US clearly does indeed have significant power over France and Germany and is always vying for more.
  - macintux 4y ago
    And they also seek to influence the U.S. out of self-interest. That doesn’t make the U.S. a puppet state, nor are they puppet states.
    - wowokay 4y ago
      Exactly! Plus I know it might sound crazy, but US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission. If The whole world joined Warsaw and the US felt isolated I guarantee you wouldn’t see us invading Canada/Mexico/Europe in the name of self defense, even though provocative USSR tactics might actually warrant such a response. But the US doesn’t roll that way, generally we want good trade relations and non-interference, practically the whole world has been against us as different times and we still didn’t lash out. Providing humanitarian aid and weapons is not the same as sending your own people into a country against the worlds interest and claiming self defense.
      - caret 4y ago
        I don’t know if I wish I were this naïve, or glad I never was.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        > US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission. Yes it does [1][2], the list is huge [3]. I don't know how you could possibly be this ignorant with the Internet existing. 1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism 3. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-countries-has-the-us-invaded https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-...
      - the_only_law 4y ago
        > but US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission I’m sure Central and South America are glad to know now.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      That reasoning only works if you ignore the extreme power imbalance.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  Of course the U.S controls France and especially Germany, that's a common point of contention in European politics. That's a result of globalism, trade agreements and having the biggest military in the world. Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have. Wishing for a fair world does not make it so.
  - kcb 4y ago
    It's an huge leap to go from world foreign politics to "control". > Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have. Self-determination and agency is available to those who have the will to fight for it. Clearly they do have the means to fight for it based on their ability to secure vast military support from the west.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > It's an huge leap to go from world foreign politics to "control". Oh okay, it's just a coincidence that almost always get what they want and when they don't there's just coincidentally disaster.
  - dantyti 4y ago
    >Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have. Fascinating claim about a country that has been successfully resisting a Russian invasion for 3 months with predominantly locally-produced (and upgraded) weapons. Nevertheless, if we steelman your argument and agree that Ukraine can never be truly self-determined and that it must choose between US or Russia, then not choosing a country that has done to Ukraine what the Russian Federation has been doing at least since 2003[1] seems favorable. There's also the matter of centuries worth of historic memory of repression and subjugation, tortures, rapes, murders, man-made famines, forced mass deportations, etc. perpetrated by Russian autocrats and dictators. And now, quite alarmingly, we are seeing Stalinist-style atrocities being committed in 2022[2,3]. With this in mind, falling under Russian occupation is the worst case scenario for Ukraine and Ukrainians. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
pedrosorio 4y ago
I think what you’re missing is a conversation with anyone who lives in a country bordering Russia in Eastern Europe. Perhaps there is more nuance than “controlled by the USA vs controlled by Russia - equally bad?”
- zosima 4y ago
  Of course there is. But as far as I can tell nothing on this matter has been about building a non-corrupt Ukrainian state with functioning institutions. It has from the US side been (since many, many years) about influencing politics in anti-Russian directions and pouring weapons and military training into Ukraine. And then USA's actions in Ukraine seems a lot like their Middle Eastern or South American policies. Which I doubt is in the interest of the vast majority of Ukrainians.
  - infamia 4y ago
    The influx of training and weapons only started pouring in after Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas. At that point, Russia's aspirations on the entirety of Ukraine were apparent for all to see. The Ukrainians understandably decided that aligning with the NATO, despite it's member states' ulterior motives, were far better than becoming a vassal state like Belarus.
dantyti 4y ago
> what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine this is a bold claim to make without any tangible evidence to support it. Especially as it contradicts your very next statement about not having "a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine". It seems like you are claiming that Ukraine has no agency and autonomy in this situation or that the country is only allowed to resist with the armaments it has? Care to elaborate? As for the war becoming "even more vile and bloody": do you believe Ukraine should just give up so that the Russians could be able to indiscriminately torture, rape, murder and disappear countless citizens of Ukraine, as they have been doing for centuries in the region? Again, Ukraine used its own armaments to resists and Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol and other bloody and vile atrocities still happened.

by zosima 4y ago

macintux 4y ago

As the letter states, what you’re effectively denying is Ukrainian self-determination and agency. Does the U.S. “control” France? Germany? Clearly not.

guerrilla 4y ago
The US clearly does indeed have significant power over France and Germany and is always vying for more.
- macintux 4y ago
  And they also seek to influence the U.S. out of self-interest. That doesn’t make the U.S. a puppet state, nor are they puppet states.
  - wowokay 4y ago
    Exactly! Plus I know it might sound crazy, but US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission. If The whole world joined Warsaw and the US felt isolated I guarantee you wouldn’t see us invading Canada/Mexico/Europe in the name of self defense, even though provocative USSR tactics might actually warrant such a response. But the US doesn’t roll that way, generally we want good trade relations and non-interference, practically the whole world has been against us as different times and we still didn’t lash out. Providing humanitarian aid and weapons is not the same as sending your own people into a country against the worlds interest and claiming self defense.
    - caret 4y ago
      I don’t know if I wish I were this naïve, or glad I never was.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission. Yes it does [1][2], the list is huge [3]. I don't know how you could possibly be this ignorant with the Internet existing. 1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism 3. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-countries-has-the-us-invaded https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-...
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      > but US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission I’m sure Central and South America are glad to know now.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    That reasoning only works if you ignore the extreme power imbalance.
ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
Of course the U.S controls France and especially Germany, that's a common point of contention in European politics. That's a result of globalism, trade agreements and having the biggest military in the world. Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have. Wishing for a fair world does not make it so.
- kcb 4y ago
  It's an huge leap to go from world foreign politics to "control". > Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have. Self-determination and agency is available to those who have the will to fight for it. Clearly they do have the means to fight for it based on their ability to secure vast military support from the west.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > It's an huge leap to go from world foreign politics to "control". Oh okay, it's just a coincidence that almost always get what they want and when they don't there's just coincidentally disaster.
- dantyti 4y ago
  >Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have. Fascinating claim about a country that has been successfully resisting a Russian invasion for 3 months with predominantly locally-produced (and upgraded) weapons. Nevertheless, if we steelman your argument and agree that Ukraine can never be truly self-determined and that it must choose between US or Russia, then not choosing a country that has done to Ukraine what the Russian Federation has been doing at least since 2003[1] seems favorable. There's also the matter of centuries worth of historic memory of repression and subjugation, tortures, rapes, murders, man-made famines, forced mass deportations, etc. perpetrated by Russian autocrats and dictators. And now, quite alarmingly, we are seeing Stalinist-style atrocities being committed in 2022[2,3]. With this in mind, falling under Russian occupation is the worst case scenario for Ukraine and Ukrainians. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre

pedrosorio 4y ago

I think what you’re missing is a conversation with anyone who lives in a country bordering Russia in Eastern Europe. Perhaps there is more nuance than “controlled by the USA vs controlled by Russia - equally bad?”

zosima 4y ago
Of course there is. But as far as I can tell nothing on this matter has been about building a non-corrupt Ukrainian state with functioning institutions. It has from the US side been (since many, many years) about influencing politics in anti-Russian directions and pouring weapons and military training into Ukraine. And then USA's actions in Ukraine seems a lot like their Middle Eastern or South American policies. Which I doubt is in the interest of the vast majority of Ukrainians.
- infamia 4y ago
  The influx of training and weapons only started pouring in after Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas. At that point, Russia's aspirations on the entirety of Ukraine were apparent for all to see. The Ukrainians understandably decided that aligning with the NATO, despite it's member states' ulterior motives, were far better than becoming a vassal state like Belarus.

dantyti 4y ago

> what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine this is a bold claim to make without any tangible evidence to support it. Especially as it contradicts your very next statement about not having "a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine". It seems like you are claiming that Ukraine has no agency and autonomy in this situation or that the country is only allowed to resist with the armaments it has? Care to elaborate? As for the war becoming "even more vile and bloody": do you believe Ukraine should just give up so that the Russians could be able to indiscriminately torture, rape, murder and disappear countless citizens of Ukraine, as they have been doing for centuries in the region? Again, Ukraine used its own armaments to resists and Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol and other bloody and vile atrocities still happened.