3 ms·

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

by 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]
      - mopsi 4y ago
        > Ukraine is hopelessly outgunned. That hasn't been true since HIMARS arrived last summer. Now there's parity, and Russian war correspondents report that in some sectors Ukraine even exceeds Russian capabilities. In coming months, we'll see how the "hopelessly outgunned" army will do with more modern weapons in the upcoming spring counteroffensive. All we know right now is that the Russian winter offensive was a spectacular failure: worst casuality figures since the war began and nothing to show for it. Let's hope that Ukraine makes good progress and ends the war soon.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - luckylion 4y ago
        You're making assumptions about me based on your projections. They're wrong. I don't profit from any weapon sales, and it's the Ukrainians who want to fight. I'm certain especially Western Europe would've been much happier if Ukraine hadn't resisted and Russia could've swallowed them (your preferred option), because it would've meant no annoying break with your main provider of gas and oil. But here we are, and some people are still claiming that Russia has the right to terrorize its neighbors because hurr durr Red Army strong.
  - schuyler2d 4y ago
    What about Ukraine's national interest? Where does that fit in? What about the Eastern European countries' interests whose combined economies eclipses Russia?
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.

by starkd 4y ago

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]
    - mopsi 4y ago
      > Ukraine is hopelessly outgunned. That hasn't been true since HIMARS arrived last summer. Now there's parity, and Russian war correspondents report that in some sectors Ukraine even exceeds Russian capabilities. In coming months, we'll see how the "hopelessly outgunned" army will do with more modern weapons in the upcoming spring counteroffensive. All we know right now is that the Russian winter offensive was a spectacular failure: worst casuality figures since the war began and nothing to show for it. Let's hope that Ukraine makes good progress and ends the war soon.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - luckylion 4y ago
      You're making assumptions about me based on your projections. They're wrong. I don't profit from any weapon sales, and it's the Ukrainians who want to fight. I'm certain especially Western Europe would've been much happier if Ukraine hadn't resisted and Russia could've swallowed them (your preferred option), because it would've meant no annoying break with your main provider of gas and oil. But here we are, and some people are still claiming that Russia has the right to terrorize its neighbors because hurr durr Red Army strong.
- schuyler2d 4y ago
  What about Ukraine's national interest? Where does that fit in? What about the Eastern European countries' interests whose combined economies eclipses Russia?

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.