2 ms·

See how you have to twist every fact in order to preserve your worldview? First of all, who started it is not irrelevant; it's the entire reason for this war.

by mcv 4y ago

See how you have to twist every fact in order to preserve your worldview? First of all, who started it is not irrelevant; it's the entire reason for this war. Only Russia wants this war, and the only reason it's still going on is because Putin doesn't want to lose face. Because admitting he failed, would be admitting weakness and would weaken his position, which is something a strongman like him can't afford. But he could end the war any time he wants to. Secondly, the entire west is quite explicitly not at war with Russia. The entire west is explicitly staying out of the war in order to prevent a war with Russia, because they don't want to escalate the war. Putin is only painting it as a war with the west to the Russian people in order to justify his own failure. If the west had entered the war, Zelensky would have his no-fly zone and a lot more. Once NATO enters the war, there won't be much left of the Russian military positions in Ukraine, and Putin knows this very well. But he needs this lie in order to not look weak to his own people. The fact you believe Putin's propaganda suggests you listen too much to Russian state media.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Yes and no. No, the entire west is not kinetically at war with Russia. But yes, the west is supplying Ukraine with hardware, training, intel, cyber, and financial (at least). It's not just Russia vs Ukraine, it's Russia against Ukraine plus as much as the west can do without going kinetic. So, yes, Russia started this war, and the moral blame is on Russia. But when Russia says it's at war with the whole west, there is an element of truth in their position.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Yes and no. No, the entire west is not kinetically at war with Russia. But yes, the west is supplying Ukraine with hardware, training, intel, cyber, and financial (at least). It's not just Russia vs Ukraine, it's Russia against Ukraine plus as much as the west can do without going kinetic. Its mostly second rate western gear though, there's no to minimal western EW, theres no wester MBT's, theres no western aviation. Whilst the west has provided a lot this is no where near the actual military force of any modern western country.
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    Well then second rate gear must be all the west has? The western military industrial complex can't even keep up with the production of armaments they are sending to Ukraine[0]. - [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/28/the-us-and-europe-are-running-out-of-weapons-to-send-to-ukraine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/28/the-us-and-europe-are-runnin...
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > Well then second rate gear must be all the west has? Second rate gear that the west is trying to get rid of is what is being supplied, in part because its nearly as easy as mothballing and a lot of it just happens to cross over with what Ukraine needs. Also by definition the second rate gear may not even be in production anymore which would obviously make, acquiring more of it difficult. Theres no western fighters, EW, tanks or even large drones. Even with some of the good gear that is provided (M270 / HIMARS) they aren't even providing ATACMS or other longe range missiles (such as PrSm, or ER GLMRS).
    - mcv 4y ago
      It's all the west is willing to give away for free. I don't know if you've paid attention at all, but there's not the usual US stealth bombers and fighters, F35s, F22s, F117s, that tend to dominate US conflicts attacking any Russian positions. There's no NATO troops fighting in Ukraine (except a handful on a volunteer basis, but not as part of NATO units). There's no NATO subs sinking the entire Russian Black Sea fleet, which they could easily do. There's no Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks attacking Russian positions. Ukraine has received a lot of artillery, as well as old Soviet material, but that's really it. If NATO were to actually get involved in this war, it would be over very soon. But NATO is trying very hard to stay out of it and just giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> The fact you believe Putin's propaganda suggests you listen too much to Russian state media. Oh please, where? Can't access it in the "freedom of speech" bastion that is Europe! Do you have some link? I only get NATO propaganda, and tons of it, on every media. I have no intention of being dragged by propagandists like you into a old trite and pointless discussion. Also, and it's clearly shows you're a propagandist (conscious of it or not), the discussion wasn't about who started the war, but about the efficiency of autocracies. Put any European country in the spot Russia's in, they would collapse in weeks. But no, you had to hijack it and shift the topic on Ukraine. Enough of it, nobody really cares, same way as nobody cares about Yemen or Syria. It's all a big circus and people like you willingly joined to take the part of the clowns.
- Tainnor 4y ago
  You say you don't care about the Ukraine war topic, but you keep fueling it nonetheless. I agree it's beside the point. The point is that - except possibly China and a select few others (Singapore, UAE, etc.) - most autocratic countries are not doing well (almost all countries ranked high on the HDI are democracies for example). You blaming the West for it (regardless of whether that's justified or not), doesn't change that empirical fact.
- mcv 4y ago
  > Put any European country in the spot Russia's in, they would collapse in weeks. No European country would ever be in the spot Russia's in, because they wouldn't start such a pointless war of conquest for some autocrat's pride. They used to back in the 19th century, because that's when many of them were still autocracies. Russia is the only remaining colonial power in Europe, and one of the few remaining dictatorships, and its performance is not exactly a compelling argument. Russia is the problem. Autocracies are not efficient. They are unbelievably wasteful on several levels. Not only are the Russian government and military inefficient, their goals are also wasteful: we're seeing entire countries destroyed, thousands of people killed, billions wasted on weapons, billions more in houses and infrastructure destroyed, because of one autocrat.

by mcv 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Yes and no. No, the entire west is not kinetically at war with Russia. But yes, the west is supplying Ukraine with hardware, training, intel, cyber, and financial (at least). It's not just Russia vs Ukraine, it's Russia against Ukraine plus as much as the west can do without going kinetic. So, yes, Russia started this war, and the moral blame is on Russia. But when Russia says it's at war with the whole west, there is an element of truth in their position.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> Yes and no. No, the entire west is not kinetically at war with Russia. But yes, the west is supplying Ukraine with hardware, training, intel, cyber, and financial (at least). It's not just Russia vs Ukraine, it's Russia against Ukraine plus as much as the west can do without going kinetic. Its mostly second rate western gear though, there's no to minimal western EW, theres no wester MBT's, theres no western aviation. Whilst the west has provided a lot this is no where near the actual military force of any modern western country.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  Well then second rate gear must be all the west has? The western military industrial complex can't even keep up with the production of armaments they are sending to Ukraine[0]. - [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/28/the-us-and-europe-are-running-out-of-weapons-to-send-to-ukraine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/28/the-us-and-europe-are-runnin...
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > Well then second rate gear must be all the west has? Second rate gear that the west is trying to get rid of is what is being supplied, in part because its nearly as easy as mothballing and a lot of it just happens to cross over with what Ukraine needs. Also by definition the second rate gear may not even be in production anymore which would obviously make, acquiring more of it difficult. Theres no western fighters, EW, tanks or even large drones. Even with some of the good gear that is provided (M270 / HIMARS) they aren't even providing ATACMS or other longe range missiles (such as PrSm, or ER GLMRS).
  - mcv 4y ago
    It's all the west is willing to give away for free. I don't know if you've paid attention at all, but there's not the usual US stealth bombers and fighters, F35s, F22s, F117s, that tend to dominate US conflicts attacking any Russian positions. There's no NATO troops fighting in Ukraine (except a handful on a volunteer basis, but not as part of NATO units). There's no NATO subs sinking the entire Russian Black Sea fleet, which they could easily do. There's no Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks attacking Russian positions. Ukraine has received a lot of artillery, as well as old Soviet material, but that's really it. If NATO were to actually get involved in this war, it would be over very soon. But NATO is trying very hard to stay out of it and just giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago

> The fact you believe Putin's propaganda suggests you listen too much to Russian state media. Oh please, where? Can't access it in the "freedom of speech" bastion that is Europe! Do you have some link? I only get NATO propaganda, and tons of it, on every media. I have no intention of being dragged by propagandists like you into a old trite and pointless discussion. Also, and it's clearly shows you're a propagandist (conscious of it or not), the discussion wasn't about who started the war, but about the efficiency of autocracies. Put any European country in the spot Russia's in, they would collapse in weeks. But no, you had to hijack it and shift the topic on Ukraine. Enough of it, nobody really cares, same way as nobody cares about Yemen or Syria. It's all a big circus and people like you willingly joined to take the part of the clowns.

Tainnor 4y ago
You say you don't care about the Ukraine war topic, but you keep fueling it nonetheless. I agree it's beside the point. The point is that - except possibly China and a select few others (Singapore, UAE, etc.) - most autocratic countries are not doing well (almost all countries ranked high on the HDI are democracies for example). You blaming the West for it (regardless of whether that's justified or not), doesn't change that empirical fact.
mcv 4y ago
> Put any European country in the spot Russia's in, they would collapse in weeks. No European country would ever be in the spot Russia's in, because they wouldn't start such a pointless war of conquest for some autocrat's pride. They used to back in the 19th century, because that's when many of them were still autocracies. Russia is the only remaining colonial power in Europe, and one of the few remaining dictatorships, and its performance is not exactly a compelling argument. Russia is the problem. Autocracies are not efficient. They are unbelievably wasteful on several levels. Not only are the Russian government and military inefficient, their goals are also wasteful: we're seeing entire countries destroyed, thousands of people killed, billions wasted on weapons, billions more in houses and infrastructure destroyed, because of one autocrat.