7 ms·

It's an imperial war instigated by multiple parties. Not one party. And the Ukrainian people are paying for it in blood.

archagon 3y ago
You might want to brush up on what the word "instigated" means.
- mythrwy 3y ago
  I know what the word means. I also know history and have been following events there closely for over a decade. I am old. I watched the fall of the Soviet Union. I watched Serbia. I watched Georgia. And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them. What you said is patently false there is only one imperial instigator in this war, that’s Russia what remains after that is the imagined fever dreams of people trying to justify and support a war of imperialism by Russia that is systematically doing what it can to wipe out the existence of the country it seems to subjugate.
- dilap 3y ago
  Instigated is maybe too strong a word, but certainly at least provoked. It's a testament to the awesome power of US propaganda that you can't throw a stone in Texas without hitting a house flying the Ukrainian flag, but almost no one actually knows the history and circumstances leading up to the war. I think these two pieces provide some good background: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-provoked-and-why-that-matters-if-we-want-peace https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-... https://archive.is/uvm3W https://archive.is/uvm3W
  - int_19h 3y ago
    All the supposed "provocations" boil down to Ukraine doing whatever it can to avoid becoming a Russian colony again - which in Russian agitprop parlance is euphemistically termed "infringing on Russian geopolitical interests" or similar. There's no equivalence between the sides in Ukraine at all, even if US is also an empire and pursues its own imperial goals elsewhere.
  - soledades 3y ago
    Not even Putin is dumb enough to think that NATO presents a threat to Russia, and even he could have seen the obvious effect that an invasion would have of galvanizing the alliance. The threat to his regime and its legitimacy is to have a democratic neighbor with russian speakers who live better lives, in what is a former colonial subject of the glorious russian empires. NATO does make a great bogeyman though for internal audiences, to shift attention away from the futures they are deprived of by dictatorship.
  - elihu 3y ago
    Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members. Russia doesn't have a right to be upset that Ukraine kicked out a corrupt puppet. As for NATO expanding east, Russia has something of a grievance there but the U.S. and NATO should never have relegated some of the former Soviet states to the status of "buffer regions" in perpetuity in the first place. Those countries have the right to self-determination and security just like anyone else.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members. Well there was a bit more going on than that (for example, as to why the other members were not present, and how that came to pass). But either way - the "coup" allegation is bogus, and not taken seriously by anyone in Ukraine.
soledades 3y ago
One party instigated by undertaking an illegal invasion of a sovereign state. And one party instigated by allowing victims of imperial subjugation to seek protection against further imperial subjugation by joining a military alliance... or something like that? These things are all quite different, it is strange to use the same word to describe them.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > And one party instigated by allowing victims of imperial subjugation to seek protection against further imperial subjugation by joining a military alliance... or something like that? As silly as that sounds as provocation, its not even true. Directly reacting to Putin's requests, NATO denied Ukraine and Georgia MAPs in 2008, leading almost immediately to Russia invading Georgia, and 6 years later—immediately after Ukraine tossed out a Russia-friendly government for one that sought closer ties with the West but explicitly disclaimed any intention of seeking NATO membership (in large part because NATO caved to Russia in 2008), Russia invaded Ukraine.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
It's amazing to see how durable the opinion that everything in the world is somehow the fault of the US. Russia attempts to annex its neighbor - US fault. China invades Taiwan - the US PROVOKED them. It's warped.
- mythrwy 3y ago
  I don't think you understand the history of the area nor what has taken place. Which is understandable if the lens is Western media. The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Likewise many of the breakaway republics (until 1920s). And what happened to Russia in the 90s. How the borders of Ukraine came to be. What happened in Kosovo. How American "imperialism" works, and what it is. That is not to excuse any Russian behavior either. They have traditionally been imperialistic and expansionist. Their neighbors have reasonable cause to fear them. But this is multiple parties instigating civil war, inserting puppet governments, creating propaganda, stirring up hate and taking sides, arming and providing intelligence for their own gain. It's not at all just "Evil Russia and we are helping democracy!" in reality. This sentiment, (targeted at the historical and event illiterate) is propaganda to get you to play along, pay for it, fight for it or at least not complain. And the same holds true with whatever Russian media is telling it's citizens. I'm sure it has a very good story about evil imperialists and the misdeeds of the CIA, so that's why the rich should get richer and you should put on army fatigues. It's an economic war. Like most, or even all wars are in reality. War is a racket. Always has been. The little people pay with blood, the big people stand to turn big profits and maybe if they are lucky the little people enjoy a favored economic position later at the expense of whomever they subjugated. It's frankly shocking to me that people don't understand this by now.
  - xorcist 3y ago
    All of what you say could be factually correct, and it's still an imperialistic war instigated by Russia to subsume a neighbor. Accepting an Ukranian identity was never on the table. War may be a racket, but history is what it is and now we're here. There are several morally corrupt parties, but that does not make them equal. That is a fallacy. Civilians suffer, and they suffer tremendously. We mustn't lose sight of right and wrong even when we're deep in moral relativism.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> It's an imperial war instigated by multiple parties. No, its not. Exactly one party launched an unprovoked war of aggression to seize territory from another sovereign state. EDIT: After, I should add, successfully convincing NATO not to let them in in the interests of regional stability and avoiding provocation (and did the same thing with Georgia, first.) Turning around 8 years into the war and blaming NATO for provoking the war based on the relation between NATO and Ukraine that developed after the war started, demonstrating the bad faith of the stability argument, is a particularly brazen propaganda move,

archagon 3y ago

You might want to brush up on what the word "instigated" means.

mythrwy 3y ago
I know what the word means. I also know history and have been following events there closely for over a decade. I am old. I watched the fall of the Soviet Union. I watched Serbia. I watched Georgia. And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them. What you said is patently false there is only one imperial instigator in this war, that’s Russia what remains after that is the imagined fever dreams of people trying to justify and support a war of imperialism by Russia that is systematically doing what it can to wipe out the existence of the country it seems to subjugate.
dilap 3y ago
Instigated is maybe too strong a word, but certainly at least provoked. It's a testament to the awesome power of US propaganda that you can't throw a stone in Texas without hitting a house flying the Ukrainian flag, but almost no one actually knows the history and circumstances leading up to the war. I think these two pieces provide some good background: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-provoked-and-why-that-matters-if-we-want-peace https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-... https://archive.is/uvm3W https://archive.is/uvm3W
- int_19h 3y ago
  All the supposed "provocations" boil down to Ukraine doing whatever it can to avoid becoming a Russian colony again - which in Russian agitprop parlance is euphemistically termed "infringing on Russian geopolitical interests" or similar. There's no equivalence between the sides in Ukraine at all, even if US is also an empire and pursues its own imperial goals elsewhere.
- soledades 3y ago
  Not even Putin is dumb enough to think that NATO presents a threat to Russia, and even he could have seen the obvious effect that an invasion would have of galvanizing the alliance. The threat to his regime and its legitimacy is to have a democratic neighbor with russian speakers who live better lives, in what is a former colonial subject of the glorious russian empires. NATO does make a great bogeyman though for internal audiences, to shift attention away from the futures they are deprived of by dictatorship.
- elihu 3y ago
  Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members. Russia doesn't have a right to be upset that Ukraine kicked out a corrupt puppet. As for NATO expanding east, Russia has something of a grievance there but the U.S. and NATO should never have relegated some of the former Soviet states to the status of "buffer regions" in perpetuity in the first place. Those countries have the right to self-determination and security just like anyone else.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members. Well there was a bit more going on than that (for example, as to why the other members were not present, and how that came to pass). But either way - the "coup" allegation is bogus, and not taken seriously by anyone in Ukraine.

soledades 3y ago

One party instigated by undertaking an illegal invasion of a sovereign state. And one party instigated by allowing victims of imperial subjugation to seek protection against further imperial subjugation by joining a military alliance... or something like that? These things are all quite different, it is strange to use the same word to describe them.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> And one party instigated by allowing victims of imperial subjugation to seek protection against further imperial subjugation by joining a military alliance... or something like that? As silly as that sounds as provocation, its not even true. Directly reacting to Putin's requests, NATO denied Ukraine and Georgia MAPs in 2008, leading almost immediately to Russia invading Georgia, and 6 years later—immediately after Ukraine tossed out a Russia-friendly government for one that sought closer ties with the West but explicitly disclaimed any intention of seeking NATO membership (in large part because NATO caved to Russia in 2008), Russia invaded Ukraine.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

It's amazing to see how durable the opinion that everything in the world is somehow the fault of the US. Russia attempts to annex its neighbor - US fault. China invades Taiwan - the US PROVOKED them. It's warped.

mythrwy 3y ago
I don't think you understand the history of the area nor what has taken place. Which is understandable if the lens is Western media. The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Likewise many of the breakaway republics (until 1920s). And what happened to Russia in the 90s. How the borders of Ukraine came to be. What happened in Kosovo. How American "imperialism" works, and what it is. That is not to excuse any Russian behavior either. They have traditionally been imperialistic and expansionist. Their neighbors have reasonable cause to fear them. But this is multiple parties instigating civil war, inserting puppet governments, creating propaganda, stirring up hate and taking sides, arming and providing intelligence for their own gain. It's not at all just "Evil Russia and we are helping democracy!" in reality. This sentiment, (targeted at the historical and event illiterate) is propaganda to get you to play along, pay for it, fight for it or at least not complain. And the same holds true with whatever Russian media is telling it's citizens. I'm sure it has a very good story about evil imperialists and the misdeeds of the CIA, so that's why the rich should get richer and you should put on army fatigues. It's an economic war. Like most, or even all wars are in reality. War is a racket. Always has been. The little people pay with blood, the big people stand to turn big profits and maybe if they are lucky the little people enjoy a favored economic position later at the expense of whomever they subjugated. It's frankly shocking to me that people don't understand this by now.
- xorcist 3y ago
  All of what you say could be factually correct, and it's still an imperialistic war instigated by Russia to subsume a neighbor. Accepting an Ukranian identity was never on the table. War may be a racket, but history is what it is and now we're here. There are several morally corrupt parties, but that does not make them equal. That is a fallacy. Civilians suffer, and they suffer tremendously. We mustn't lose sight of right and wrong even when we're deep in moral relativism.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> It's an imperial war instigated by multiple parties. No, its not. Exactly one party launched an unprovoked war of aggression to seize territory from another sovereign state. EDIT: After, I should add, successfully convincing NATO not to let them in in the interests of regional stability and avoiding provocation (and did the same thing with Georgia, first.) Turning around 8 years into the war and blaming NATO for provoking the war based on the relation between NATO and Ukraine that developed after the war started, demonstrating the bad faith of the stability argument, is a particularly brazen propaganda move,