2 ms·

Why are you trying to change the subject from Russia aggression to US aggression? Something's aren't about the US, and viewing this war in that lens completely

by enkid 4y ago

Why are you trying to change the subject from Russia aggression to US aggression? Something's aren't about the US, and viewing this war in that lens completely takes agency away from Ukraine and Russia. Instead, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine. Russia has nuclear weapons and promised to guarantee Ukraine's borders in exchange for them giving up theirs. Instead, Russia invaded and took territory from them in 2014. When that wasn't enough, they did it again a year ago. Before 2014, Ukraine barely had a military and posed no threat to anyone. What possible reason could Russia have to invade Ukraine that would justify this?

bawolff 4y ago
Usa is a super power. Pretty much every geopolitical conflict is going to have at least something to do with usa. That is kind of implicit in the definition of super power.
- enkid 4y ago
  "Having something to do with" doesn't mean explains, and only talking about the US still takes all agency away from other actors.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Sure USA isn't the only actor here, but pretending they aren't a factor in this conflict and the geopolitical situation, is the same level of misleading as pretending they are the only factor.
leereeves 4y ago
I'm sure you know what happened in 2014. Let's think about it for a moment from the Russian perspective: A violent revolution in which the democratically elected pro-Russian President was driven out, followed by "pro-Russian unrest"[1] and civil war between the new government of Ukraine and separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine who support the old government (and Russia)[2]. That war had been ongoing for eight years when the Russians justified the invasion of Ukraine by recognizing the separatists as independent states calling for Russian aid.[3] And historically, the US has considered intervention in a civil war to be sufficient justification for invasion. It's hypocritical to argue that it's ok for us but not for Russia. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukr... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%9320... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_...
- whatshisface 4y ago
  The state department might have to deal with that paradox in press briefings (haha, as if that question would get asked) but as an internet commenter I have no problem stating the obvious: it's bad.
- mopsi 4y ago
  There was no civil war before Russia manufactured it to take advantage of political instability and invade. There is no reason to speak of "pro-Russian separatists" as anything distinct from Russian armed forces. It's baffling how so many people in the west can't see through this simple deception. Russia saw an opportunity to invade, set up puppet states and then came to their rescue. The European Court of Human Rights ruled last month: > Among other things, the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It referred to the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest. It further found that the respondent State had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy; that it had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale from the earliest days of the “DPR” and the “LPR” and over the following months and years; that it had carried out artillery attacks upon requests from the separatists; and that it had provided political and economic support to the separatists. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7550165-10372782&filename=Grand%20Chamber%20decision%20Ukraine%20and%20the%20Netherlands%20v.%20Russia%20-%20Flight%20MH17%20and%20eastern-Ukraine-conflict%20case%20partially%20admissible%2C%20will%20proceed%20to%20judgment.pdf https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&...
  - leereeves 4y ago
    All of that, save the artillery strikes, is also true of the US in western Ukraine: presence of military personnel; significant influence on military strategy; provided weapons, political, and economic support. That certainly doesn't mean western Ukraine is "under the jurisdiction of" the US, so I don't see how that claim is justified about Russia. And your own source acknowledges that the violence began before the Russian presence: > In early March 2014, pro-Russian protests began across eastern regions of Ukraine, including the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (“Donbass”). Some of the protestors formed armed groups and the violence rapidly escalated, with pro-Russian separatists seizing public buildings Note that's in March, before "the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest"

by enkid 4y ago

bawolff 4y ago

Usa is a super power. Pretty much every geopolitical conflict is going to have at least something to do with usa. That is kind of implicit in the definition of super power.

enkid 4y ago
"Having something to do with" doesn't mean explains, and only talking about the US still takes all agency away from other actors.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Sure USA isn't the only actor here, but pretending they aren't a factor in this conflict and the geopolitical situation, is the same level of misleading as pretending they are the only factor.

leereeves 4y ago

I'm sure you know what happened in 2014. Let's think about it for a moment from the Russian perspective: A violent revolution in which the democratically elected pro-Russian President was driven out, followed by "pro-Russian unrest"[1] and civil war between the new government of Ukraine and separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine who support the old government (and Russia)[2]. That war had been ongoing for eight years when the Russians justified the invasion of Ukraine by recognizing the separatists as independent states calling for Russian aid.[3] And historically, the US has considered intervention in a civil war to be sufficient justification for invasion. It's hypocritical to argue that it's ok for us but not for Russia. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukr... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%9320... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_concerning_the_events_...

whatshisface 4y ago
The state department might have to deal with that paradox in press briefings (haha, as if that question would get asked) but as an internet commenter I have no problem stating the obvious: it's bad.
mopsi 4y ago
There was no civil war before Russia manufactured it to take advantage of political instability and invade. There is no reason to speak of "pro-Russian separatists" as anything distinct from Russian armed forces. It's baffling how so many people in the west can't see through this simple deception. Russia saw an opportunity to invade, set up puppet states and then came to their rescue. The European Court of Human Rights ruled last month: > Among other things, the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It referred to the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest. It further found that the respondent State had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy; that it had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale from the earliest days of the “DPR” and the “LPR” and over the following months and years; that it had carried out artillery attacks upon requests from the separatists; and that it had provided political and economic support to the separatists. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7550165-10372782&filename=Grand%20Chamber%20decision%20Ukraine%20and%20the%20Netherlands%20v.%20Russia%20-%20Flight%20MH17%20and%20eastern-Ukraine-conflict%20case%20partially%20admissible%2C%20will%20proceed%20to%20judgment.pdf https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&...
- leereeves 4y ago
  All of that, save the artillery strikes, is also true of the US in western Ukraine: presence of military personnel; significant influence on military strategy; provided weapons, political, and economic support. That certainly doesn't mean western Ukraine is "under the jurisdiction of" the US, so I don't see how that claim is justified about Russia. And your own source acknowledges that the violence began before the Russian presence: > In early March 2014, pro-Russian protests began across eastern regions of Ukraine, including the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (“Donbass”). Some of the protestors formed armed groups and the violence rapidly escalated, with pro-Russian separatists seizing public buildings Note that's in March, before "the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest"