7 ms·

And notice how these fatal errors are still occurring. The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist. No ca

by starkd 4y ago

And notice how these fatal errors are still occurring. The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist. No calls for diplomacy. Meanwhile, 200,000 Ukrainians have been led to their deaths.

gWPVhyxPHqvk 4y ago
If your homeland gets invaded one day, I hope to be an apologist for your invaders.
driscoll42 4y ago
Strange how you don't comment on the many more Russians that Putin has murdered by his unprovoked war of aggression as well.
- starkd 4y ago
  Strange how you automatically feel the need to support one side and can't see the horrible outcome this has been for all parties. This could have been resolved through diplomacy. You never see the term even mentioned anymore.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    > This could have been resolved through diplomacy. Yes, by giving Ukraine to Russia. We know how it works if you try to appease fascists, come on.
    - starkd 4y ago
      This is a more complex than that. I don't like the invasion, but its not like Russia has no vital interests in the area that is right on their border. And they have occupied Crimea in the past going back to 1776. I'm just saying they have as much national interest as the West does. Israel Prime Minister claims they had a deal that was agreed to but Biden administration turned it down. It's also the responsible thing to do to look at the prospects of forcing a war though, when the Urkainians are so heavily outgunned. 200,000 Ukrainians have died in this fight. Maybe 50,000 Russians have died (its hard to find out specifics). The US wants to fight this war on the cheap with the Ukrainians taking all the casualties so that Americans won't have to. That is pretty deplorable to me.
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        Your casualty figures don't seem to line up with most other sources. Any citations?
        starkd 4y ago
        The sources are all over the place, but they all seem to be horrific. There are estimates that Ukrainian deaths so far could be anywhere from 100K to 200K. Russians have lost a lot too. But the only thing we know is that they are depressingly high.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > The sources are all over the place You gave specific figures. From which source, and why choose that one?
      - luckylion 4y ago
        Of course Russia has vital interests all around it: everyone does. But it doesn't follow that "therefore Russia should be allowed to annex everything around it". Again, we know that playbook, it has played out before in Europe. Today it's Ukraine, tomorrow it's Poland, and your arguments will still be exactly the same: Russia has vital interests in Poland, Russia has occupied Poland before, Poland is outgunned, and why would we care about Poland, really? And then it's Germany, at which point, again, nothing has changed. Britain and France might use their nuclear deterrence when it's their turn, but if they listened to you, they'd probably say "do we want to end humanity just because we don't like Russia to rule over us? Surely not, humanity is too important to be destroyed over Russia's vital interest to annex whatever is next to Russia" and roll over. It would end only when Russia invades the US or China, because neither will allow it if their nuclear weapons are still available by then.
        starkd 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - misnome 4y ago
    One side could unilaterally end the war in one word. Strange that it’s only in the interests of that side that people call for this.
    - starkd 4y ago
      that's not how the world works. Peace deals can happen, but everyone has to put everything on the table. When people dig in and are stubborn, that's when we get hundreds of thousands of deaths.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        Please explain exactly what you think the Ukrainians have "dug into".
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        > When people dig in and are stubborn Such as when you decide to announce a rushed annexation of your enemy's lands after your army suffers the biggest rout of the 21st century? While claiming that this war isn't about trying to annex your enemy's lands, after all...
  - seattle_spring 4y ago
    Just curious, what are your primary sources of information that have shaped your opinions and perspectives shown in this thread?
    - starkd 4y ago
      Quite a few. I try to listen to what everyone is saying. It always makes me nervous when the media seem to march in lockstep. Looks into what David Sacks has been saying. He got into it on the ALL-in podcast a couple of weeks ago, but you can find him on Twitter. He says the corruption in Ukraine right now is off the charts. Higher than anything in any corrupt Latin American country. Its difficult to decipher what is going on in Ukraine right now, because there's so much propaganda from all sides.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > Quite a few. name a top three then, or can we assume that this is "random forwards on FaceBook or twitter" ?
        starkd 4y ago
        No idea what a random forwards is. Look at what David Sacks has been saying. There are many benefiting from this war. Neither Russia nor ukraine are on that list.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > Look at what David Sacks has been saying Is that your top 3, your "listen to everyone" ? One guy. That does not even answer the "top 3" question meaningfully. One guy: David Sacks; a Paypal and Thiel aligned guy, who unironically calls Russia's invasion "Woke War III" ? Not a geopolitics guy, just a a rich "culture war" guy? This has less than zero credibility to me. While I am sorry that your information diet is so poor, both in quality and in variety; but I have no interest in you recommending the same to me. Sort yourself out first. > No idea what a random forwards is. Do you follow the youtube algorithm then? That would explain this amateur hour.
AutumnCurtain 4y ago
Thank God no Russians have died in this "proxy war" they were so unable to avoid
- starkd 4y ago
  I didn't say no Russians have died. There have been horrible deaths on both sides. No one is winning in this war.
  - Eumenes 4y ago
    US imperialism and the defense companies are winning this war
    - starkd 4y ago
      Exactly. I don't think they are being fairly open about that. They aren't even hiding it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ramchip 4y ago
I... what? Around me, questioning the war gets you labelled as Putin critic, not an apologist. He literally started the war.
- yucky 4y ago
  > He literally started the war. When do you think the war started?
  - caskstrength 4y ago
    > When do you think the war started? When do _you_ think the war started? Annexation of Crimea was ordered by Putin.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Do you remember what happened right before he annexed Crimea?
      - caskstrength 4y ago
        No. What? Ukrainian nazis invaded Belgorod or something?
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        He's going to launch into his rote "Euromaidan was a coup" BS talking point. Again (1). Sorry, some trolls are just boring and predictable. 1) The last (but not only) time was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34977835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34977835 While it is amusing to read the rhetorical beating that they took repeatedly in response, this does not stop them from trying it another time. If they're not well paid, then someone is getting value for money.
        yucky 4y ago
        [flagged]
raverbashing 4y ago
Yes Russia invades a country but somehow it's a "proxy war" I don't know why you question the Putin apologist moniker, the alternatives are way worse. At least own it up
- starkd 4y ago
  I think its pretty obvious this is a proxy war. Many legislators (both republican and democrat) are openly admitting it. See Dan Crenshaw-TX openly claim the benefits to the Ukraine war being able to fight a major geopolitical rival (Russia) with no American casualties by supplying weapons to Ukraine. That is a proxy war by definition. Looks at comments from Victoria Nuland (state dept officials from both parties) being glad the Nordstream pipeline being blown up.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I had thought there was some merit to the term "proxy war" here. But actually no, it's just another bit of specious nonsense. Thank you for making me look it up! Wikipedia: A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities Calling this a proxy war ignores the part of the defintion about motivation. The only instigator here is Russia, and Ukraine is mainly fighting for its own interest of not being liquidated by Russia. Supplying allies does not make a country a combatant, nor does it make the supplied party a "proxy".
    - starkd 4y ago
      Its a proxy war because US is using Ukraine as an convenient excuse to take Russia down a few pegs militarily. US Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX admitted it, saying that its a way to fight Russia on the cheap with no American casualties. Of course, that compeletely minimizes the Ukrainian casualties that it would take. Its not being done in the interest of Ukraine so much as the interest of fighting Russia. Ukraine is being used here, and they are likely to lose anyway. And even if they do win, and Russia is defeated, they will be so ravaged it, it will be little better than a pyrrhic victory. But BlackRock will have a great place to invest. Too bad for those who died.
mrighele 4y ago
Or notice how those that are pissed off when they are called Putinists call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a “proxy war” and blame the death of all those Ukrainian people on anybody except the culprit, I.e. Putin
- starkd 4y ago
  Not what I said. You can blame Putin AND recognize this thing could have been avoided. The prime minister of Israel said they had a deal but the US said no.
chpatrick 4y ago
And yet only one belligerent invaded the other. There aren't two sides to this.
- starkd 4y ago
  I am not denying the Russian invasion is unlawful. Reread what I wrote. You are proving my point.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    Ok, I re-read it. It was just as violently stupid the second time around. "Diplomacy" doesn't mean "I break into your house and agree to take only 10% of your stuff if you don't fight back." And when the cops show up, that's not a "proxy war."
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Calling for diplomacy in a war of aggression where the aggressor has claimed annexation of the defender's territory means... what? What is there to negotiate?
    - starkd 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - walls 4y ago
        This comment is Russian propaganda: https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...
        starkd 4y ago
        Business Insider is not credible. Its a rag. They had the basis for peace talks to begin. Biden Administration decided to use it as a cheap way to damage Russia militarily with no American deaths. But massive Ukrainian deaths they find acceptable.
JediLuke 4y ago
In this case it seems very clear cut, the Russian army invaded and attacked the civilian populace.
mindslight 4y ago
It's not due to "questioning" what's going on in Ukraine, but rather repeating Kremlin talking points. Dragging it into the "both sides" empire-vs-empire context is exactly what Russia wants, as it justifies their naked imperialism while making it so their goal of Ukraine ceasing to exist could be some diplomatic middleground rather than the maximalist goal that it is. In reality Ukraine wants to be part of the West, as it's a whole lot nicer than the Russian empire that seems to still be running on the playbook from the 1940's. So talking about this as if it's two empires divvying up a country is nonsensical - rather it's the cold truth that world powers exist, and to defend a war against one you have to align yourself with a different one. And just so we're clear here, I say this as someone who wholeheartedly opposed invading Iraq.
mopsi 4y ago
> The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist. Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. They can't bring themselves to admit that they are losing to Ukraine and hence emphasise how they are "acktshually fighting against the whole NATO". Allies have given a lot of support, but mainly in the form of obsolete military surplus equipment and equipment alone doesn't fight; see Afghanistan. > No calls for diplomacy. April 1945 was too late for peace offerings.
- starkd 4y ago
  Many us legislators are openly admitting it is a proxy war. See Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX comments on Ukrain support. He calls it a good deal that we get to fight a major geo-political adversary without any American deaths by just supplying Ukraine with weapons. He is not the only one. That is by definition a proxy war. Fighting a war on the cheap that isn't designed to ultimately win anything, meanwhile sending 200,000 of those Ukrainians to their deaths is despicable in my opinion. I am not on Putin's side on this, but this is not 1945. Russia does have some vital national interests in the reason, since its right on their border and they have a long historical relationship with Crimea. The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it. This is a result of strategic planning within the State Dept. to have this fight.
  - starkd 4y ago
    I will also note that the cash burn rate for this war in Ukraine is now exceeding that of Afghanistan in the early years. It is more money after nothing, because they won't even define what victory means. Just more war slogans.
    - Zak 4y ago
      I think the Ukrainian government has defined victory as driving the Russian military out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
  - 4y ago
rendall 4y ago
> No calls for diplomacy. Because calls for diplomacy benefit only Russia. Instead, issue calls for Russia to leave Ukraine. > Meanwhile, 200,000 Ukrainians have been led to their deaths. Leaving aside your dubious stat, here "Meanwhile, Russia killed x Ukrainian civilians and soldiers in an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation." There. Fixed it for you. Your passive voice there betrays your pro-Russian sympathies, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. In other words, pro-Putin statements gets you labeled pro-Putin apologist. Stop doing that, and the problem goes away.
mock-possum 4y ago
Wait what do you mean - the first fatal error was American soldiers murdering people - the second equivalent fatal error in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is?

by starkd 4y ago

gWPVhyxPHqvk 4y ago

If your homeland gets invaded one day, I hope to be an apologist for your invaders.

driscoll42 4y ago

Strange how you don't comment on the many more Russians that Putin has murdered by his unprovoked war of aggression as well.

starkd 4y ago
Strange how you automatically feel the need to support one side and can't see the horrible outcome this has been for all parties. This could have been resolved through diplomacy. You never see the term even mentioned anymore.
- luckylion 4y ago
  > This could have been resolved through diplomacy. Yes, by giving Ukraine to Russia. We know how it works if you try to appease fascists, come on.
  - starkd 4y ago
    This is a more complex than that. I don't like the invasion, but its not like Russia has no vital interests in the area that is right on their border. And they have occupied Crimea in the past going back to 1776. I'm just saying they have as much national interest as the West does. Israel Prime Minister claims they had a deal that was agreed to but Biden administration turned it down. It's also the responsible thing to do to look at the prospects of forcing a war though, when the Urkainians are so heavily outgunned. 200,000 Ukrainians have died in this fight. Maybe 50,000 Russians have died (its hard to find out specifics). The US wants to fight this war on the cheap with the Ukrainians taking all the casualties so that Americans won't have to. That is pretty deplorable to me.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      Your casualty figures don't seem to line up with most other sources. Any citations?
      - starkd 4y ago
        The sources are all over the place, but they all seem to be horrific. There are estimates that Ukrainian deaths so far could be anywhere from 100K to 200K. Russians have lost a lot too. But the only thing we know is that they are depressingly high.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > The sources are all over the place You gave specific figures. From which source, and why choose that one?
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Of course Russia has vital interests all around it: everyone does. But it doesn't follow that "therefore Russia should be allowed to annex everything around it". Again, we know that playbook, it has played out before in Europe. Today it's Ukraine, tomorrow it's Poland, and your arguments will still be exactly the same: Russia has vital interests in Poland, Russia has occupied Poland before, Poland is outgunned, and why would we care about Poland, really? And then it's Germany, at which point, again, nothing has changed. Britain and France might use their nuclear deterrence when it's their turn, but if they listened to you, they'd probably say "do we want to end humanity just because we don't like Russia to rule over us? Surely not, humanity is too important to be destroyed over Russia's vital interest to annex whatever is next to Russia" and roll over. It would end only when Russia invades the US or China, because neither will allow it if their nuclear weapons are still available by then.
      - starkd 4y ago
        [flagged]
- misnome 4y ago
  One side could unilaterally end the war in one word. Strange that it’s only in the interests of that side that people call for this.
  - starkd 4y ago
    that's not how the world works. Peace deals can happen, but everyone has to put everything on the table. When people dig in and are stubborn, that's when we get hundreds of thousands of deaths.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Please explain exactly what you think the Ukrainians have "dug into".
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      > When people dig in and are stubborn Such as when you decide to announce a rushed annexation of your enemy's lands after your army suffers the biggest rout of the 21st century? While claiming that this war isn't about trying to annex your enemy's lands, after all...
- seattle_spring 4y ago
  Just curious, what are your primary sources of information that have shaped your opinions and perspectives shown in this thread?
  - starkd 4y ago
    Quite a few. I try to listen to what everyone is saying. It always makes me nervous when the media seem to march in lockstep. Looks into what David Sacks has been saying. He got into it on the ALL-in podcast a couple of weeks ago, but you can find him on Twitter. He says the corruption in Ukraine right now is off the charts. Higher than anything in any corrupt Latin American country. Its difficult to decipher what is going on in Ukraine right now, because there's so much propaganda from all sides.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      > Quite a few. name a top three then, or can we assume that this is "random forwards on FaceBook or twitter" ?
      - starkd 4y ago
        No idea what a random forwards is. Look at what David Sacks has been saying. There are many benefiting from this war. Neither Russia nor ukraine are on that list.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > Look at what David Sacks has been saying Is that your top 3, your "listen to everyone" ? One guy. That does not even answer the "top 3" question meaningfully. One guy: David Sacks; a Paypal and Thiel aligned guy, who unironically calls Russia's invasion "Woke War III" ? Not a geopolitics guy, just a a rich "culture war" guy? This has less than zero credibility to me. While I am sorry that your information diet is so poor, both in quality and in variety; but I have no interest in you recommending the same to me. Sort yourself out first. > No idea what a random forwards is. Do you follow the youtube algorithm then? That would explain this amateur hour.

AutumnCurtain 4y ago

Thank God no Russians have died in this "proxy war" they were so unable to avoid

starkd 4y ago
I didn't say no Russians have died. There have been horrible deaths on both sides. No one is winning in this war.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  US imperialism and the defense companies are winning this war
  - starkd 4y ago
    Exactly. I don't think they are being fairly open about that. They aren't even hiding it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ramchip 4y ago

I... what? Around me, questioning the war gets you labelled as Putin critic, not an apologist. He literally started the war.

yucky 4y ago
> He literally started the war. When do you think the war started?
- caskstrength 4y ago
  > When do you think the war started? When do _you_ think the war started? Annexation of Crimea was ordered by Putin.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Do you remember what happened right before he annexed Crimea?
    - caskstrength 4y ago
      No. What? Ukrainian nazis invaded Belgorod or something?
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        He's going to launch into his rote "Euromaidan was a coup" BS talking point. Again (1). Sorry, some trolls are just boring and predictable. 1) The last (but not only) time was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34977835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34977835 While it is amusing to read the rhetorical beating that they took repeatedly in response, this does not stop them from trying it another time. If they're not well paid, then someone is getting value for money.
      - yucky 4y ago
        [flagged]

raverbashing 4y ago

Yes Russia invades a country but somehow it's a "proxy war" I don't know why you question the Putin apologist moniker, the alternatives are way worse. At least own it up

starkd 4y ago
I think its pretty obvious this is a proxy war. Many legislators (both republican and democrat) are openly admitting it. See Dan Crenshaw-TX openly claim the benefits to the Ukraine war being able to fight a major geopolitical rival (Russia) with no American casualties by supplying weapons to Ukraine. That is a proxy war by definition. Looks at comments from Victoria Nuland (state dept officials from both parties) being glad the Nordstream pipeline being blown up.
- mindslight 4y ago
  I had thought there was some merit to the term "proxy war" here. But actually no, it's just another bit of specious nonsense. Thank you for making me look it up! Wikipedia: A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities Calling this a proxy war ignores the part of the defintion about motivation. The only instigator here is Russia, and Ukraine is mainly fighting for its own interest of not being liquidated by Russia. Supplying allies does not make a country a combatant, nor does it make the supplied party a "proxy".
  - starkd 4y ago
    Its a proxy war because US is using Ukraine as an convenient excuse to take Russia down a few pegs militarily. US Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX admitted it, saying that its a way to fight Russia on the cheap with no American casualties. Of course, that compeletely minimizes the Ukrainian casualties that it would take. Its not being done in the interest of Ukraine so much as the interest of fighting Russia. Ukraine is being used here, and they are likely to lose anyway. And even if they do win, and Russia is defeated, they will be so ravaged it, it will be little better than a pyrrhic victory. But BlackRock will have a great place to invest. Too bad for those who died.

mrighele 4y ago

Or notice how those that are pissed off when they are called Putinists call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a “proxy war” and blame the death of all those Ukrainian people on anybody except the culprit, I.e. Putin

starkd 4y ago
Not what I said. You can blame Putin AND recognize this thing could have been avoided. The prime minister of Israel said they had a deal but the US said no.

chpatrick 4y ago

And yet only one belligerent invaded the other. There aren't two sides to this.

starkd 4y ago
I am not denying the Russian invasion is unlawful. Reread what I wrote. You are proving my point.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Ok, I re-read it. It was just as violently stupid the second time around. "Diplomacy" doesn't mean "I break into your house and agree to take only 10% of your stuff if you don't fight back." And when the cops show up, that's not a "proxy war."
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Calling for diplomacy in a war of aggression where the aggressor has claimed annexation of the defender's territory means... what? What is there to negotiate?
  - starkd 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - walls 4y ago
      This comment is Russian propaganda: https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-claim-west-blocked-ukraine-russia-peace-deal-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...
      - starkd 4y ago
        Business Insider is not credible. Its a rag. They had the basis for peace talks to begin. Biden Administration decided to use it as a cheap way to damage Russia militarily with no American deaths. But massive Ukrainian deaths they find acceptable.

JediLuke 4y ago

In this case it seems very clear cut, the Russian army invaded and attacked the civilian populace.

mindslight 4y ago

It's not due to "questioning" what's going on in Ukraine, but rather repeating Kremlin talking points. Dragging it into the "both sides" empire-vs-empire context is exactly what Russia wants, as it justifies their naked imperialism while making it so their goal of Ukraine ceasing to exist could be some diplomatic middleground rather than the maximalist goal that it is. In reality Ukraine wants to be part of the West, as it's a whole lot nicer than the Russian empire that seems to still be running on the playbook from the 1940's. So talking about this as if it's two empires divvying up a country is nonsensical - rather it's the cold truth that world powers exist, and to defend a war against one you have to align yourself with a different one. And just so we're clear here, I say this as someone who wholeheartedly opposed invading Iraq.

mopsi 4y ago

> The moment you question the proxy war in Ukraine, you are immediately labelled a Putin apologist. Because the insistence of calling it a proxy war to make the war appear larger than it is comes from Kremlin's PR canon. They can't bring themselves to admit that they are losing to Ukraine and hence emphasise how they are "acktshually fighting against the whole NATO". Allies have given a lot of support, but mainly in the form of obsolete military surplus equipment and equipment alone doesn't fight; see Afghanistan. > No calls for diplomacy. April 1945 was too late for peace offerings.

starkd 4y ago
Many us legislators are openly admitting it is a proxy war. See Rep. Dan Crenshaw-TX comments on Ukrain support. He calls it a good deal that we get to fight a major geo-political adversary without any American deaths by just supplying Ukraine with weapons. He is not the only one. That is by definition a proxy war. Fighting a war on the cheap that isn't designed to ultimately win anything, meanwhile sending 200,000 of those Ukrainians to their deaths is despicable in my opinion. I am not on Putin's side on this, but this is not 1945. Russia does have some vital national interests in the reason, since its right on their border and they have a long historical relationship with Crimea. The prime minister of Israel claims they had a deal worked out, but the Biden administration nixed it. This is a result of strategic planning within the State Dept. to have this fight.
- starkd 4y ago
  I will also note that the cash burn rate for this war in Ukraine is now exceeding that of Afghanistan in the early years. It is more money after nothing, because they won't even define what victory means. Just more war slogans.
  - Zak 4y ago
    I think the Ukrainian government has defined victory as driving the Russian military out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
- 4y ago

rendall 4y ago

> No calls for diplomacy. Because calls for diplomacy benefit only Russia. Instead, issue calls for Russia to leave Ukraine. > Meanwhile, 200,000 Ukrainians have been led to their deaths. Leaving aside your dubious stat, here "Meanwhile, Russia killed x Ukrainian civilians and soldiers in an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation." There. Fixed it for you. Your passive voice there betrays your pro-Russian sympathies, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. In other words, pro-Putin statements gets you labeled pro-Putin apologist. Stop doing that, and the problem goes away.

mock-possum 4y ago

Wait what do you mean - the first fatal error was American soldiers murdering people - the second equivalent fatal error in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is?