4 ms·

> the same neocon ideologues who are vigorously opposing a negotiated settlement in eastern Ukraine Please stop pushing absurd Russian propaganda talking point

> the same neocon ideologues who are vigorously opposing a negotiated settlement in eastern Ukraine Please stop pushing absurd Russian propaganda talking points about US "preventing" Russia from signing peace agreement in Ukraine. If you are incapable of finding continuous statements of Russian officials that goals of "special military operation" remains the same (including "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine), then I can provide you with plenty of them. Also, you can verify on the map that Russian appetites in Ukraine are increased for much more than the east. And no, they said multiple times that they are not prepared to relinquish they claims on southern parts and of course Crimea.

photochemsyn 4y ago
The actual prize in the conflict is access to the European energy market, economically speaking. It's about Russian pipeline gas vs. US LNG tanker gas, and it's about where the money spent on those fossil fuels will be deposited - London & New York banks, or Moscow? This is why the Saudi war on Yemen has been ignored. The reality is that if Putin had taken the deal offered in 2003 (Exxon buying >50% of Russian oil production) or had even signed onto petrodollar recycling, then the US media and Congress and the White House would be no more interested in a Russian land grab in eastern Ukraine (with the support of the Russian-speaking population) then in Yemen, they might even call it 'a justified intervention against neo-Nazi militias' or something like that. The solution for Europe is of course to take neither Russian nor US gas, but instead eliminate fossil fuel dependency by massive investment in renewable energy (which is possible if more difficult than many realize). I don't think that's a "Russian propaganda talking point" though, and the US propaganda machine doesn't want this outcome either.
- macintux 4y ago
  If the Mexican army raped and bombed their way across Texas towards California, should we just shrug and point out those lands were taken under historically dubious circumstances and we should let them have the U.S. Southwest?
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    Well, it was the American army that took over Texas, wasn't it? A lot depends on what the local population wants, I think. The Vietnamese population didn't want to be ruled by a puppet government controlled by France the USA, hence the active armed resistance to the French and US miltary occupation (1950s-1970s). The Afghan population didn't want to be ruled by the Soviet Union, or by the United States, hence the active resistance to Russian control in the 1980s and to American control in the first two decades of this century. Now, you could say the Americans in Vietnam tried to rape and beat the population into submission to imperial rule, and that the Soviets tried to do that in Afghanistan, and that's called wartime propaganda. The actual goals of both of those occupations were fundamentally economic in nature, but that's a taboo subject (starting a war for economic gain being a Class A War Crime in terms of international legal precedents). It does seem pretty clear however that the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainian/Crimean population doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, doesn't it? So just draw a new border and end the conflict.
    - caskstrength 4y ago
      > It does seem pretty clear however that the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainian/Crimean population doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, doesn't it? So just draw a new border and end the conflict. Umm, my dude, are you sure you are not familiar with typical Russian propaganda talking points as you declared in your previous reply? You seem to regurgitate them all too well to be honest with you! So, first of all, as a person with half of my family coming from one the towns in eastern Ukraine that has been occupied occupied since 2014: No, it is absolutely not clear that the population of those regions that were there in 2014 "don't want to be ruled by Kyiv". By now, yes, people who didn't like the occupation are either left or dead. You are also seem to be wrong regarding Crimea [0]. Now, with that out of the way we need to discuss some other inconvenient facts regarding where Russians want to "draw a new border". The Russians also tried to occupy parts of northern Ukraine where, as I can assure you, they were _extremely_ not welcome. I don't have close friends or relatives from south, but I also got the impression that people on [1] or [2] or [3] are not too unfriendly towards Kyiv. Go figure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [0] https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/201320October20720Survey20of20Crimean20Public20Opinion2C20May2016-302C202013.pdf https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/201320October... (slide 17 to be specific). [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60632587 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60632587 [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/nov/11/russia-ukraine-war-live-news-kyivs-forces-close-in-on-kherson-reclaim-dozens-of-towns-in-south https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/nov/11/russia-uk... [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/14/ze-len-skiy-kherson-crowds-cheer-president-after-he-gives-speech-in-city https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/14/ze-len-skiy-kh...

photochemsyn 4y ago

The actual prize in the conflict is access to the European energy market, economically speaking. It's about Russian pipeline gas vs. US LNG tanker gas, and it's about where the money spent on those fossil fuels will be deposited - London & New York banks, or Moscow? This is why the Saudi war on Yemen has been ignored. The reality is that if Putin had taken the deal offered in 2003 (Exxon buying >50% of Russian oil production) or had even signed onto petrodollar recycling, then the US media and Congress and the White House would be no more interested in a Russian land grab in eastern Ukraine (with the support of the Russian-speaking population) then in Yemen, they might even call it 'a justified intervention against neo-Nazi militias' or something like that. The solution for Europe is of course to take neither Russian nor US gas, but instead eliminate fossil fuel dependency by massive investment in renewable energy (which is possible if more difficult than many realize). I don't think that's a "Russian propaganda talking point" though, and the US propaganda machine doesn't want this outcome either.

macintux 4y ago
If the Mexican army raped and bombed their way across Texas towards California, should we just shrug and point out those lands were taken under historically dubious circumstances and we should let them have the U.S. Southwest?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Well, it was the American army that took over Texas, wasn't it? A lot depends on what the local population wants, I think. The Vietnamese population didn't want to be ruled by a puppet government controlled by France the USA, hence the active armed resistance to the French and US miltary occupation (1950s-1970s). The Afghan population didn't want to be ruled by the Soviet Union, or by the United States, hence the active resistance to Russian control in the 1980s and to American control in the first two decades of this century. Now, you could say the Americans in Vietnam tried to rape and beat the population into submission to imperial rule, and that the Soviets tried to do that in Afghanistan, and that's called wartime propaganda. The actual goals of both of those occupations were fundamentally economic in nature, but that's a taboo subject (starting a war for economic gain being a Class A War Crime in terms of international legal precedents). It does seem pretty clear however that the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainian/Crimean population doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, doesn't it? So just draw a new border and end the conflict.
  - caskstrength 4y ago
    > It does seem pretty clear however that the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainian/Crimean population doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, doesn't it? So just draw a new border and end the conflict. Umm, my dude, are you sure you are not familiar with typical Russian propaganda talking points as you declared in your previous reply? You seem to regurgitate them all too well to be honest with you! So, first of all, as a person with half of my family coming from one the towns in eastern Ukraine that has been occupied occupied since 2014: No, it is absolutely not clear that the population of those regions that were there in 2014 "don't want to be ruled by Kyiv". By now, yes, people who didn't like the occupation are either left or dead. You are also seem to be wrong regarding Crimea [0]. Now, with that out of the way we need to discuss some other inconvenient facts regarding where Russians want to "draw a new border". The Russians also tried to occupy parts of northern Ukraine where, as I can assure you, they were _extremely_ not welcome. I don't have close friends or relatives from south, but I also got the impression that people on [1] or [2] or [3] are not too unfriendly towards Kyiv. Go figure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [0] https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/201320October20720Survey20of20Crimean20Public20Opinion2C20May2016-302C202013.pdf https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/201320October... (slide 17 to be specific). [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60632587 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60632587 [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/nov/11/russia-ukraine-war-live-news-kyivs-forces-close-in-on-kherson-reclaim-dozens-of-towns-in-south https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/nov/11/russia-uk... [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/14/ze-len-skiy-kherson-crowds-cheer-president-after-he-gives-speech-in-city https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/14/ze-len-skiy-kh...