5 ms·

This article emphasizes the US' militarism to the exclusion of any real critique to the bully in the room, Russia and the failure of a strategy of appeasement w

This article emphasizes the US' militarism to the exclusion of any real critique to the bully in the room, Russia and the failure of a strategy of appeasement which the EU led by Germany has tried for half a century. The alternative to military aid is allowing Russia to continue to act out its fantasies of conquest. This has knock-on effects to any other countries currently deliberating land-grabs. Merkel repeatedly brought the EU to bed with dictatorships and now finds itself unable to rapidly respond to a humanitarian crisis. The US, once again, is pulling the heavy weight of sending materiel, without which it is almost certain Ukraine would fall. What's after Ukraine? Other former Soviet states who are denied agency by Putin. Poland, after 123 years of being conquered and oppressed, 2 world wars and 50 years of communism is one of the few powerful EU states who recognizes the immediate existential crisis at hand. It is disheartening to see authors use the invasion of Ukraine as a hitpiece for the global narrative of US oppression. Undoubtedly the US is no shining paragon of goodness but people forget that it was the US who saved Europe from Nazi Germany and once again it is the US pulling Europe out of another mess. Perhaps if Merkel had done a better job the EU could finally fight for itself.

pydry 4y ago
>The alternative to military aid is allowing Russia to continue to act out its fantasies of conquest. That wasnt the alternative. This war was 100% avoidable. The US took Ukraine's hand and led it directly into it. It took six years of NATO slowly bringing Ukraine under its arm (with joint exercises, etc.) where three separate promises that it would join and three months of Putin sitting on the border asking for it not to join. This wasnt like Iraq. This is the defensive alliance destroyed three separate countries in a fit of unprovoked pique. It's an aggressive defensive alliance. Ukraine is the clash of empires that the US military industrial complex has been craving. It gets to spend only Ukrainian lives, stratospherically boost military budgets and create a European dependence on American LNG. For the US it's win/win/win.
- emptysongglass 4y ago
  > It took six years of NATO slowly bringing Ukraine under its arm (with joint exercises, etc.) where three separate promises that it would join and three months of Putin sitting on the border with one demand. This is propaganda. If you recall, Russia annexed bits of Georgia and Crimea. Russia wanted a warm water port so it took one by force. Former Soviet states flocked to join NATO because of Russian imperialism: they wanted protection from a former master eager to see them rejoined. Sweden and Finland now both make their bids to join NATO because of Russian imperialism, just like every other time a country has begged entry. Putin published [1] a long screed denying Ukrainian agency and statehood. How do you defend that? [1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
  - pydry 4y ago
    >This is propaganda. If you recall, Russia annexed bits of Georgia and Crimea. Preceded in each case, if you recall, by attempts by those countries to join NATO. In Georgia and Ukraine the US NED were paying activists the equivalent of $100k / year salaries to publish propaganda and start protests on behalf of pro western candidates. Once those pro western candidates were elected they tried to join NATO, whereupon Russia tried to invoke NATO's frozen conflict clause in order to try and prevent NATO military bases being set up on vulnerable sections of their border. Rule #1 of empire is stir up trouble on the borders of rival empires. The British knew this well. This is also why Putin tried something similar in the US 2016 election with a fraction of the resources where Americans apparently "flocked to vote in a Russia friendly president".
    - emptysongglass 4y ago
      So annexing countries is OK when a country wants to join a defensive alliance against a bully? No, that's not right. And you still have not responded to my question regarding Putin's screed denying Ukrainian statehood. Giving Putin anything (appeasement) when he actively denies the legitimacy of a state is and uses falsehoods such as "denazification" as a casus belli is not a good strategy.
      - 4y ago
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  > The US took Ukraine's hand and led it directly into it. This is what Putin says. Moreover, he argues that Ukraine has never been a real country and that it is his duty to make it share the fate of Belarus. Unfortunately, this argument completely ignores the will of Ukrainians. They did not want to join NATO because they wanted a war but because they wanted to avoid it. This is clear to any sane person. In 2014 Putin lost Ukraine so he conquered Crimea and decided to start a war in Donbas, meantime Ukrainians tried to do what they can to avoid the catastrophe, and in the end Putin decided other countries will be too scared to help Ukraine and started a full-scale war. If we let Ukrainians be slaves of Putin, we only have ourselves to blame.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >This is what Putin says. Yes it is. Everything he says is propaganda, but not everything he says is false. >Moreover, he argues that Ukraine has never been a real country This is bullshit for the domestic propaganda mill. The equivalent of Iraqi WMDs. It's disconnected from the geostrategic reasons for the invasion. >Unfortunately, this argument completely ignores the will of Ukrainians Yes, just as WMDs completely ignored what was true and what was false. Grist for the propaganda mill is not designed to be true its designed to appeal to domestic audiences (& eastern ukrainians who are pissed off that their politicians are imprisoned, their media is shut down and their language rights are revoked). >They did not want to join NATO because they wanted a war but because they wanted to avoid it. I cant really believe that. Zelensky chose the exact point when Russia started sending troops home after months of saying "dont join NATO" to say "we are absolutely committed to joining NATO". They were years off membership at this point and had thumbed their noses at minsk 2 for six years. I cant really see any other reason to choose to say that at that particular time other than as a geopolitical "come at me, bro". I think plenty of Ukrainians do want NATO membership purely for its defensive protection, just as cuba wanted nukes for domestic protection from US invasion. This isnt why NATO wants Ukraine though. They want to use Ukraine as a bridgehead to balkanize Russia. I have no idea what Zelenskys thinking but he either wanted this war, is a colossal idiot who sleptwalked into it coz he had multiple chances to avoid this invasion and turned down every one.
  - yucky 4y ago
yucky 4y ago
>people forget that it was the US who saved Europe from Nazi Germany Ironic that you ignored the outsized role Russia played in defeating Nazi Germany, in a thread about Russia. Most historians would argue that Russia played an even larger role than the US on that front.
- emptysongglass 4y ago
  Except the USSR was instrumental to Nazi Germany's early success with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and material trade. If you arm and abet the enemy with oil refineries and raw materials well your outsized role in defeating the enemy you enabled is now much smaller.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Then I suppose we really need to look at all of the Wall Street financing and industrial partnerships between the US and Nazi Germany too?
    - emptysongglass 4y ago
      As a playful exercise, it would be interesting to see how these two powers averaged in their net contributions to the war effort.

pydry 4y ago

>The alternative to military aid is allowing Russia to continue to act out its fantasies of conquest. That wasnt the alternative. This war was 100% avoidable. The US took Ukraine's hand and led it directly into it. It took six years of NATO slowly bringing Ukraine under its arm (with joint exercises, etc.) where three separate promises that it would join and three months of Putin sitting on the border asking for it not to join. This wasnt like Iraq. This is the defensive alliance destroyed three separate countries in a fit of unprovoked pique. It's an aggressive defensive alliance. Ukraine is the clash of empires that the US military industrial complex has been craving. It gets to spend only Ukrainian lives, stratospherically boost military budgets and create a European dependence on American LNG. For the US it's win/win/win.

emptysongglass 4y ago
> It took six years of NATO slowly bringing Ukraine under its arm (with joint exercises, etc.) where three separate promises that it would join and three months of Putin sitting on the border with one demand. This is propaganda. If you recall, Russia annexed bits of Georgia and Crimea. Russia wanted a warm water port so it took one by force. Former Soviet states flocked to join NATO because of Russian imperialism: they wanted protection from a former master eager to see them rejoined. Sweden and Finland now both make their bids to join NATO because of Russian imperialism, just like every other time a country has begged entry. Putin published [1] a long screed denying Ukrainian agency and statehood. How do you defend that? [1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
- pydry 4y ago
  >This is propaganda. If you recall, Russia annexed bits of Georgia and Crimea. Preceded in each case, if you recall, by attempts by those countries to join NATO. In Georgia and Ukraine the US NED were paying activists the equivalent of $100k / year salaries to publish propaganda and start protests on behalf of pro western candidates. Once those pro western candidates were elected they tried to join NATO, whereupon Russia tried to invoke NATO's frozen conflict clause in order to try and prevent NATO military bases being set up on vulnerable sections of their border. Rule #1 of empire is stir up trouble on the borders of rival empires. The British knew this well. This is also why Putin tried something similar in the US 2016 election with a fraction of the resources where Americans apparently "flocked to vote in a Russia friendly president".
  - emptysongglass 4y ago
    So annexing countries is OK when a country wants to join a defensive alliance against a bully? No, that's not right. And you still have not responded to my question regarding Putin's screed denying Ukrainian statehood. Giving Putin anything (appeasement) when he actively denies the legitimacy of a state is and uses falsehoods such as "denazification" as a casus belli is not a good strategy.
    - 4y ago
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
> The US took Ukraine's hand and led it directly into it. This is what Putin says. Moreover, he argues that Ukraine has never been a real country and that it is his duty to make it share the fate of Belarus. Unfortunately, this argument completely ignores the will of Ukrainians. They did not want to join NATO because they wanted a war but because they wanted to avoid it. This is clear to any sane person. In 2014 Putin lost Ukraine so he conquered Crimea and decided to start a war in Donbas, meantime Ukrainians tried to do what they can to avoid the catastrophe, and in the end Putin decided other countries will be too scared to help Ukraine and started a full-scale war. If we let Ukrainians be slaves of Putin, we only have ourselves to blame.
- pydry 4y ago
  >This is what Putin says. Yes it is. Everything he says is propaganda, but not everything he says is false. >Moreover, he argues that Ukraine has never been a real country This is bullshit for the domestic propaganda mill. The equivalent of Iraqi WMDs. It's disconnected from the geostrategic reasons for the invasion. >Unfortunately, this argument completely ignores the will of Ukrainians Yes, just as WMDs completely ignored what was true and what was false. Grist for the propaganda mill is not designed to be true its designed to appeal to domestic audiences (& eastern ukrainians who are pissed off that their politicians are imprisoned, their media is shut down and their language rights are revoked). >They did not want to join NATO because they wanted a war but because they wanted to avoid it. I cant really believe that. Zelensky chose the exact point when Russia started sending troops home after months of saying "dont join NATO" to say "we are absolutely committed to joining NATO". They were years off membership at this point and had thumbed their noses at minsk 2 for six years. I cant really see any other reason to choose to say that at that particular time other than as a geopolitical "come at me, bro". I think plenty of Ukrainians do want NATO membership purely for its defensive protection, just as cuba wanted nukes for domestic protection from US invasion. This isnt why NATO wants Ukraine though. They want to use Ukraine as a bridgehead to balkanize Russia. I have no idea what Zelenskys thinking but he either wanted this war, is a colossal idiot who sleptwalked into it coz he had multiple chances to avoid this invasion and turned down every one.
- yucky 4y ago

yucky 4y ago

>people forget that it was the US who saved Europe from Nazi Germany Ironic that you ignored the outsized role Russia played in defeating Nazi Germany, in a thread about Russia. Most historians would argue that Russia played an even larger role than the US on that front.

emptysongglass 4y ago
Except the USSR was instrumental to Nazi Germany's early success with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and material trade. If you arm and abet the enemy with oil refineries and raw materials well your outsized role in defeating the enemy you enabled is now much smaller.
- yucky 4y ago
  Then I suppose we really need to look at all of the Wall Street financing and industrial partnerships between the US and Nazi Germany too?
  - emptysongglass 4y ago
    As a playful exercise, it would be interesting to see how these two powers averaged in their net contributions to the war effort.