3 ms·

For context, I live in middle-Europe, very close to the war, and as a result of my volunteer work with refugees, I have had extensive contact with both Ukrainia

For context, I live in middle-Europe, very close to the war, and as a result of my volunteer work with refugees, I have had extensive contact with both Ukrainian refugees, as well as Russian citizens entangled in this heinous mess. The Russians I have spoken to about this consider that the West started aggressively arming Ukraine for this war in 2016, which was when official, overt US policies were put in place to allow it. They identify this year as the point of no return, as "the West started officially arming Ukraine for conflict in 2016", a fact that can be observed in the US' 2016 Section 655 Report by the Dept of State. This is when US weapons first made it to the front lines. I'm not here to argue for them - I would suggest you seek out Russian citizens and engage them on the topic, if it interests you what the other side have to say about this. I relay this merely to give context to this discussion; not because my opinion aligns with any of this.

petre 3y ago
Then: "We were forced to invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they wanted free elections." Now: "We were forced to invade Ukraine, the US gave them weapons to defend themselves and they won't have our man as president." The US, UK and now the rest of NATO are doing the right thing arming Ukraine. The US ia doing the right thing approving weapons sales to Taiwan and Korea.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  "The US gave them weapons to attack Russia." <- ftfy. The USA, which arms well known fascist totalitarian-authoritarian dictators engaged in actual genocide, is doing absolutely the wrong thing. US' arms exports are a significant cause of war and calamity across the globe - not safety and security. War, and calamity. If the US were building roads and water treatment plants across the globe, instead of bombing them - then your claim that it is doing the right thing might have some substance. But, it isn't. The only thing the US builds on foreign nations' soils, is illegal dark CIA torture bases. You see, this line of thinking works both ways ..
  - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
    > "The US gave them weapons to attack Russia." <- ftfy. This would only make sense if Ukrainians were suicidal enough to actually even consider attacking Russia. Yet, in spite of massive attacks on civil houses and infrastructure, there is nothing comparable on the part of Ukraine. They attacked very few targets on Russian soil, and as far as I can tell, these were only military targets, and attacked only after Russia started the war. One would have to be either delusional or paranoid to think Ukraine wanted to attack Russia. The only thing these folsk wanted is to stay as far away from the Russian regime as possible. Unfortunately, they weren't allowed to.
    - helpfulContrib 3y ago
      >This would only make sense if Ukrainians were suicidal enough to actually even consider attacking Russia. When you consider yourself a minority and you are convinced you will be wiped out and are thus desperate, it is not uncommon for highly courageous acts to be made. There are no hard black/white lines in this spectacle. >They attacked very few targets on Russian soil I challenge you to differentiate between attacking a nation, and attacking a nations citizens, and justify those legislative positions which allow this difference to be attained, across a spectrum of international sovereign nations' own laws on the protection of their citizens. It is specious to assume, for example, that the USA are the only nation that would bomb other countries in order to protect their citizens' interests. Other nations do it, too.

petre 3y ago

Then: "We were forced to invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they wanted free elections." Now: "We were forced to invade Ukraine, the US gave them weapons to defend themselves and they won't have our man as president." The US, UK and now the rest of NATO are doing the right thing arming Ukraine. The US ia doing the right thing approving weapons sales to Taiwan and Korea.

helpfulContrib 3y ago
"The US gave them weapons to attack Russia." <- ftfy. The USA, which arms well known fascist totalitarian-authoritarian dictators engaged in actual genocide, is doing absolutely the wrong thing. US' arms exports are a significant cause of war and calamity across the globe - not safety and security. War, and calamity. If the US were building roads and water treatment plants across the globe, instead of bombing them - then your claim that it is doing the right thing might have some substance. But, it isn't. The only thing the US builds on foreign nations' soils, is illegal dark CIA torture bases. You see, this line of thinking works both ways ..
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  > "The US gave them weapons to attack Russia." <- ftfy. This would only make sense if Ukrainians were suicidal enough to actually even consider attacking Russia. Yet, in spite of massive attacks on civil houses and infrastructure, there is nothing comparable on the part of Ukraine. They attacked very few targets on Russian soil, and as far as I can tell, these were only military targets, and attacked only after Russia started the war. One would have to be either delusional or paranoid to think Ukraine wanted to attack Russia. The only thing these folsk wanted is to stay as far away from the Russian regime as possible. Unfortunately, they weren't allowed to.
  - helpfulContrib 3y ago
    >This would only make sense if Ukrainians were suicidal enough to actually even consider attacking Russia. When you consider yourself a minority and you are convinced you will be wiped out and are thus desperate, it is not uncommon for highly courageous acts to be made. There are no hard black/white lines in this spectacle. >They attacked very few targets on Russian soil I challenge you to differentiate between attacking a nation, and attacking a nations citizens, and justify those legislative positions which allow this difference to be attained, across a spectrum of international sovereign nations' own laws on the protection of their citizens. It is specious to assume, for example, that the USA are the only nation that would bomb other countries in order to protect their citizens' interests. Other nations do it, too.