5 ms·

The people of Ukraine don't want their country to surrender the lands they live in to the monsters that are torturing and raping their sons and daughters. By an

The people of Ukraine don't want their country to surrender the lands they live in to the monsters that are torturing and raping their sons and daughters. By and large that whinging is coming entirely from commentators bemoaning the cost of war over coffee at their kitchen tables. Nor do the people of Russia by and large want peace the overwhelming majority support sending their sons and daughters to murder Ukrainians. You dishonestly frame the prior takeover effected by treachery and threats of mass murder as an administrative change involving road signs and flags. Should a housebreaker invade your home and evict you by threatening to slaughter your family your eviction wouldn't be a peaceful administrative change in ownership just because the violence is threatened instead of realized. Despite this Crimea wouldn't be on the table had Russia not decided to take the rest of Ukraine. Should Russia wish to protect these folks from war they ought to start talking terms now.

EGreg 4y ago
There is nothing dishonest about my framing of the Crimea transfer FROM RUSSIA to Ukraine. I described it accurately but you misunderstood what I said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_So... I would prefer to get my overview of what “the people of Ukraine want” from actual polls conducted, not what people in the West simply assert. Same with Russia, India, China, etc. And the stats are clear: 1. Ukrainians didn’t want NATO during and after George W Bush pushed for Ukraine to be in NATO. If you care about what Ukrainians want then explain this “open door policy” where you shove countries through the door kicking and screaming https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n... 2. The people who live in Eastern and Southern Ukraine are only 56-58% supporting continuing the war. A very far cry from your claim that “Ukraine wants to continue the war”, much less invade Crimea. It is to be expected that the West of Ukraine on the other hand is happy to volunteer the Easterners for more meat grinder. It’s easier when you don’t have to live under daily bombings. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/471155/charts-russia-ukraine-war.aspx https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/471155/charts-russia-... 3. Crimea shouldn’t be on any tables. We know how Crimea voted — they wanted to be INDEPENDENT of Ukraine, since 1991: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea_in_the_post-Soviet_era_(1991%E2%80%932014)#Fall_of_the_USSR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea_in_the_post-Soviet_er... Somehow people don’t care about Crimea’s sovereignty, only Ukraine’s. But in 2014 they voted again for Independence from Ukraine. That is not surprising! If the OSCE agreed to oversee it, the legitimacy may have been enough to make it happen — like Kosovo. But OSCE refused. That doesn’t mean Ukraine gets to bomb Crimea, does it?
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Of what relevance is it what percentage wanted to join NATO in 2010? NATO expansion didn't force Russia to invade Ukraine. Nor did internal conflict over the disposition of Crimea force Russia to invade. You steadily bring up irrelevant complexities to paper over the simple truth. Russia is solely at fault and only Russia can end it. Until then let the western world continue to support Ukraine until Russia breaks.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    I have been answering you point by point, showing you where you're wrong. If a solid majority of Ukrainians do not want to join NATO in the period 1990-2010, but Bush pushed for it in 2007, then a lot of questions arise: 1) Why does NATO push for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO? 2) Why did they not welcome Russia as well? Was it more corrupt than Ukraine, or less democratic than Turkey, an existing member? Most people outside the Western bubble know the real reason. The goal was always to gradually surround Russia with NATO bases. Russia needed to be the enemy. If Russia was part of NATO, then NATO wouldn't have an enemy to defend against. Also then Europe's security would be very strong, and there would be no need for USA's weapons to keep the peace. And the bases USA has around the world would have to be reduced, too. In doing so, US presidents ignored Russian presidents (including Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev.) They also ignored everyone's warnings, and even the original architects of the USSR containment strategy: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w... Clinton ignored 50 top foreign policy experts: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o... Bush ignored pretty much everybody, including his own ambassadors and experts: https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-prevent-war https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-preve... I hope this addresses what relevance NATO expansion has. Every expert knew the predictable outcome. They said it for DECADES. And even today, billions of people around the world think like me ... according to polls: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsible-for-ukraine-war-than-russia-survey https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib... https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vatican-pope-francis-russia-war-ukraine-nato/5711655218266/ https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vat... You can repeat the words "unprovoked and unjustified" many times but that's just a verbatim phrase that you've been taught to repeat, obviously it was provoked. NATO expansion was systematic provocation. As was buzzing airspace. As was the rhetoric and the drone warfare, which worked so well in Nagorno Karabakh against Armenia. And so on. Obviously if the shoe was on the other foot, USA would do the same. In fact, they did, and does often. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an example. USA takes far less provocation to attack. Sometimes none. Like in Laos, halfway around the world. No other country does that. You seem to operate on a complete double-standard. So no, Russia isn't solely at fault. Russia can surely end it, but the consequences will be that Russia will be surrounded in short order by NATO bases, and in a decade or so, nuclear weapons pointed straight at Moscow. Maybe even broken up. While as a libertarian, I don't have a horse in this race, I can tell you that no country (especially not USA) would ever allow anything close to that to happen. Russia does not want Ukraine to become a NATO member.

EGreg 4y ago

There is nothing dishonest about my framing of the Crimea transfer FROM RUSSIA to Ukraine. I described it accurately but you misunderstood what I said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_So... I would prefer to get my overview of what “the people of Ukraine want” from actual polls conducted, not what people in the West simply assert. Same with Russia, India, China, etc. And the stats are clear: 1. Ukrainians didn’t want NATO during and after George W Bush pushed for Ukraine to be in NATO. If you care about what Ukrainians want then explain this “open door policy” where you shove countries through the door kicking and screaming https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n... 2. The people who live in Eastern and Southern Ukraine are only 56-58% supporting continuing the war. A very far cry from your claim that “Ukraine wants to continue the war”, much less invade Crimea. It is to be expected that the West of Ukraine on the other hand is happy to volunteer the Easterners for more meat grinder. It’s easier when you don’t have to live under daily bombings. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/471155/charts-russia-ukraine-war.aspx https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/471155/charts-russia-... 3. Crimea shouldn’t be on any tables. We know how Crimea voted — they wanted to be INDEPENDENT of Ukraine, since 1991: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea_in_the_post-Soviet_era_(1991%E2%80%932014)#Fall_of_the_USSR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea_in_the_post-Soviet_er... Somehow people don’t care about Crimea’s sovereignty, only Ukraine’s. But in 2014 they voted again for Independence from Ukraine. That is not surprising! If the OSCE agreed to oversee it, the legitimacy may have been enough to make it happen — like Kosovo. But OSCE refused. That doesn’t mean Ukraine gets to bomb Crimea, does it?

michaelmrose 4y ago
Of what relevance is it what percentage wanted to join NATO in 2010? NATO expansion didn't force Russia to invade Ukraine. Nor did internal conflict over the disposition of Crimea force Russia to invade. You steadily bring up irrelevant complexities to paper over the simple truth. Russia is solely at fault and only Russia can end it. Until then let the western world continue to support Ukraine until Russia breaks.
- EGreg 4y ago
  I have been answering you point by point, showing you where you're wrong. If a solid majority of Ukrainians do not want to join NATO in the period 1990-2010, but Bush pushed for it in 2007, then a lot of questions arise: 1) Why does NATO push for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO? 2) Why did they not welcome Russia as well? Was it more corrupt than Ukraine, or less democratic than Turkey, an existing member? Most people outside the Western bubble know the real reason. The goal was always to gradually surround Russia with NATO bases. Russia needed to be the enemy. If Russia was part of NATO, then NATO wouldn't have an enemy to defend against. Also then Europe's security would be very strong, and there would be no need for USA's weapons to keep the peace. And the bases USA has around the world would have to be reduced, too. In doing so, US presidents ignored Russian presidents (including Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev.) They also ignored everyone's warnings, and even the original architects of the USSR containment strategy: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w... Clinton ignored 50 top foreign policy experts: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o... Bush ignored pretty much everybody, including his own ambassadors and experts: https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-prevent-war https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-preve... I hope this addresses what relevance NATO expansion has. Every expert knew the predictable outcome. They said it for DECADES. And even today, billions of people around the world think like me ... according to polls: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsible-for-ukraine-war-than-russia-survey https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib... https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vatican-pope-francis-russia-war-ukraine-nato/5711655218266/ https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vat... You can repeat the words "unprovoked and unjustified" many times but that's just a verbatim phrase that you've been taught to repeat, obviously it was provoked. NATO expansion was systematic provocation. As was buzzing airspace. As was the rhetoric and the drone warfare, which worked so well in Nagorno Karabakh against Armenia. And so on. Obviously if the shoe was on the other foot, USA would do the same. In fact, they did, and does often. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an example. USA takes far less provocation to attack. Sometimes none. Like in Laos, halfway around the world. No other country does that. You seem to operate on a complete double-standard. So no, Russia isn't solely at fault. Russia can surely end it, but the consequences will be that Russia will be surrounded in short order by NATO bases, and in a decade or so, nuclear weapons pointed straight at Moscow. Maybe even broken up. While as a libertarian, I don't have a horse in this race, I can tell you that no country (especially not USA) would ever allow anything close to that to happen. Russia does not want Ukraine to become a NATO member.