5 ms·

What do all these trite propaganda lines about "UkRaiNian NazIs oPpreSsing RuzZiAn-sPeaKinG pEoPleS iN teh EaSt!!1" have to do with Russian army trying to occup

What do all these trite propaganda lines about "UkRaiNian NazIs oPpreSsing RuzZiAn-sPeaKinG pEoPleS iN teh EaSt!!1" have to do with Russian army trying to occupy Kyiv or annex Kherson (while indiscriminately murdering civilians in the process)? Do you need my help to verify on the map that those places are not in eastern Ukraine or in Crimea? P.S. I'm a Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

nivenkos 4y ago
Well of course, they are at war. Especially as weapons and money flood in from both sides, escalating the conflict further (long-range missiles from the USA that can hit Sevastopol, the economic conscription of the Chechens and Daghestanis in Russia, etc.) But do you think this conflict is worth it? Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction? It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace, and there is no real way of having a truly independent process and decision-making (e.g. from referendums in the DPR + LPR, etc.) - ideally this could have been resolved diplomatically a year ago.
- caskstrength 4y ago
  > Well of course, they are at war. Especially as weapons and money flood in from both sides, escalating the conflict further Wait, so are they just protecting Russian-speaking people of the east from bloodthirsty Ukrainian Nazis or they are waging aggressive war with intention to topple Ukrainian government and annex significant portion of Ukraine outside eastern regions and Crimea? > But do you think this conflict is worth it? Worth it for whom? > Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? AFAIK returning to status quo of pre-Feb 24 was proposed multiple times by Ukrainian side. That would imply Russia retaining control over Crimea indefinitely. You make it sound like Ukraine attacked Crimea first and Russia is just defending or something. > Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction? Of course not! I would prefer Russians to just pack their bags, leave and happily continue selling resources to Europe! They could even invite Angela Merkel to Gazprom board for bonus points! > It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace Ukrainian side offered peace with concessions multiple times (including neutral status, which is another usual bogeyman of Russian propaganda "we are just afraid of NATO nuking us from Ukrainian territory!"), but Russia didn't want to have any of that. It is almost like Russia is actually interested in something else besides securing oppressed Russian-speaking population of Ukraine and ensuring that no evil NATO nukes are installed on Ukrainian territory...
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > But do you think this conflict is worth it? For Russia, no. For Putin specifically, maybe. Russia is going to end up in a much worse position without any significant (and maybe any at all) gain. Putin is in a position where backtracking is difficult and dangerous, so he probably won't until things become completely untenable. For Ukraine it's very worth it because they're fighting for their own existence. > Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction? At this point, I do. Formerly, I'd tend towards "no", but I changed my mind. My reasoning: * The war has already started. Crimea has a very strategic place in it, and a vulnerability for Ukraine. * Strategically it's very desirable for Ukraine to own it, as well as for its allies. * Strategically it hurts Russia a lot to lose it. * From the long term point of view I think it's good for Russia to lose something significant in the conflict. It changes the calculus. Trying to take over Ukraine not only won't succeed, but will put them in a situation worse than before, and that hopefully is an additional reason to avoid a repeat. Russia can tolerate losing soldiers, tolerating losing a chunk of themselves is harder. > It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace, I don't think a compromise is really possible at this point. It might have been a possibility in the past, but it's too late.
  - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
    No, its the same as with Weimar Germany, once the "we will be big again" sentiments wins over, compromise just gives the perpetrators results. The party was over the moment "greatness/stability" won over "quality of life/freedom/chaos" in the heads of the common man.
  - ajvs 4y ago
    > Russia is going to end up in a much worse position without any significant (and maybe any at all) gain. Judging by how bad the inflation and energy poverty is in the West, as well as the continued loss of ground and billions in Western funds in this war whilst the ruble stays strong, I don't have the same optimism whatsoever.
    - dale_glass 4y ago

nivenkos 4y ago

Well of course, they are at war. Especially as weapons and money flood in from both sides, escalating the conflict further (long-range missiles from the USA that can hit Sevastopol, the economic conscription of the Chechens and Daghestanis in Russia, etc.) But do you think this conflict is worth it? Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction? It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace, and there is no real way of having a truly independent process and decision-making (e.g. from referendums in the DPR + LPR, etc.) - ideally this could have been resolved diplomatically a year ago.

caskstrength 4y ago
> Well of course, they are at war. Especially as weapons and money flood in from both sides, escalating the conflict further Wait, so are they just protecting Russian-speaking people of the east from bloodthirsty Ukrainian Nazis or they are waging aggressive war with intention to topple Ukrainian government and annex significant portion of Ukraine outside eastern regions and Crimea? > But do you think this conflict is worth it? Worth it for whom? > Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? AFAIK returning to status quo of pre-Feb 24 was proposed multiple times by Ukrainian side. That would imply Russia retaining control over Crimea indefinitely. You make it sound like Ukraine attacked Crimea first and Russia is just defending or something. > Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction? Of course not! I would prefer Russians to just pack their bags, leave and happily continue selling resources to Europe! They could even invite Angela Merkel to Gazprom board for bonus points! > It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace Ukrainian side offered peace with concessions multiple times (including neutral status, which is another usual bogeyman of Russian propaganda "we are just afraid of NATO nuking us from Ukrainian territory!"), but Russia didn't want to have any of that. It is almost like Russia is actually interested in something else besides securing oppressed Russian-speaking population of Ukraine and ensuring that no evil NATO nukes are installed on Ukrainian territory...
dale_glass 4y ago
> But do you think this conflict is worth it? For Russia, no. For Putin specifically, maybe. Russia is going to end up in a much worse position without any significant (and maybe any at all) gain. Putin is in a position where backtracking is difficult and dangerous, so he probably won't until things become completely untenable. For Ukraine it's very worth it because they're fighting for their own existence. > Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction? At this point, I do. Formerly, I'd tend towards "no", but I changed my mind. My reasoning: * The war has already started. Crimea has a very strategic place in it, and a vulnerability for Ukraine. * Strategically it's very desirable for Ukraine to own it, as well as for its allies. * Strategically it hurts Russia a lot to lose it. * From the long term point of view I think it's good for Russia to lose something significant in the conflict. It changes the calculus. Trying to take over Ukraine not only won't succeed, but will put them in a situation worse than before, and that hopefully is an additional reason to avoid a repeat. Russia can tolerate losing soldiers, tolerating losing a chunk of themselves is harder. > It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace, I don't think a compromise is really possible at this point. It might have been a possibility in the past, but it's too late.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  No, its the same as with Weimar Germany, once the "we will be big again" sentiments wins over, compromise just gives the perpetrators results. The party was over the moment "greatness/stability" won over "quality of life/freedom/chaos" in the heads of the common man.
- ajvs 4y ago
  > Russia is going to end up in a much worse position without any significant (and maybe any at all) gain. Judging by how bad the inflation and energy poverty is in the West, as well as the continued loss of ground and billions in Western funds in this war whilst the ruble stays strong, I don't have the same optimism whatsoever.
  - dale_glass 4y ago