6 ms·

> "arming Ukraine's invasion of Russia's Kursk Oblast" just because you don't like US imperialism, you don't have to suck up to Russian one.

darby_nine 2y ago
[flagged]
- chii 2y ago
  > where ukraine will end up being fed to the wolves. the wolves came regardless. The west's help is no altruism, but it is also what ukraine would need (and more). > Propping up a defense industry that's feeling the lack of demand; forcing europe to coalesce around the us instead of china; restricting european access to cheap russian gas trying to frame it as some sort of american conspiracy to power grab is either you propogating mis/disinformation/propaganda, or just utterly stupid to the point of an own goal (assuming you're aligned with the west).
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - wiseowise 2y ago
      > War was avoidable. The war started in 2014 and Ukraine has been preparing for full scale invasion ever since with or without western help.
      - darby_nine 2y ago
        [flagged]
        wiseowise 2y ago
        > Just because you lack the imagination or historical understanding to see how else this could have played out doesn't exclude these counterfactuals from possibility. Enlighten me, how I lack imagination or historical understanding about my own country that is being invaded right now.
        darby_nine 2y ago
        [flagged]
        wiseowise 2y ago
        You simplify it too much. There was a million people on maidan in Kyiv. Nation voted for EU - they were done with Russian kleptocrats meddling with Ukrainian politics and influencing country all the time. Looks to me you’re thinking about all of this like it’s some tabletop or RTS game.
        darby_nine 2y ago
        [flagged]
        wiseowise 2y ago
        > So does western media. What does our discussion have to do with western media? > That doesn't mean this was smart No offence, but who are you, someone sitting in thousands kilometers away and not knowing an iota about challenges that Ukraine faced since God knows when, to say what is stupid? Democratic revolution to oust Russian politics out of your country is stupid to you? Were American Revolution war and American Civil war stupid? People died, after all. Could’ve stayed colony or kept slaves. > It didn't. Yes it did, lol. And full scale invasion only solidified the victory. Russian language is increasingly vilified, Russian/Soviet symbols are being removed, corruption is being fought, national identity is being restored. It’s going to be nigh impossible to do again what Russians could afford to do in the open for 30 years.
    - hkpack 2y ago
      > War was avoidable. Ukraine only entered into armed conflict because they were promised support that never showed up. That is such a blatant lie. As a person who was in the middle of it I am so tired of people trying to change the timeline to fit their favourite conspiracy. First period of full scale invasion was driven from the bottom. The president and government was in shock and disorganised trying to work on some sort of a surrender plan while people were standing in lines for ammunition giveaway. President was not able to accept surrender because the most active people where enlisting and fighting and had their first big win - stopping the "3-day operation" and pushing russians away from Kyiv. After than happened, it became obvious how in only few weeks of occupation, russians did numerous war crimes - executing elected leaders in small cities, indiscriminate tortures, raping and so on. Read about what happened in Bucha and Irpin, but that was just the most famous places. I have friends who lived under occupation and it the same things happened in other places. It was systematic. Pushing russia from Kyiv left people in Ukraine in shock what the "brotherly" nation is willing to do just for fun. And it became very clear for everyone what the surrender would mean. But even besides all that, the war in Ukraine shapes and destabilises European politics right now. Allowing russia to win will have a devastating effect in the whole EU.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        The president and government was in shock and disorganised trying to work on some sort of a surrender plan while people were standing in lines for ammunition giveaway. This part I wasn't aware of - can you go into more detail, please? The impression from the beginning (and if it was a façade, it seems it was a very elaborate one) was that Zelenskyy and his crew were never for a moment considering surrendering. As in this famous video they made in the early hours of Feb 25th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0En27IsHaL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0En27IsHaL0 But since you were a lot closer events, perhaps you can provide some context we may be missing.
        hkpack 2y ago
        It is somewhat documented in the Wikipedia page [1]. "During a series of meetings, by the end of March Russia and Ukraine negotiators produced the Istanbul Communiqué, "Key Provisions of the Treaty on Ukraine's Security Guarantees" - a framework of a possible agreement. The agreement would have declared Ukraine to be a neutral state, put a limit on its military, and list Russia and Western countries, including the US and the UK, as guarantors, obliged to assist Ukraine in case of aggression against it. The talks almost reached agreement, with both sides "consider[ing] far-reaching concessions", but stopped in May 2022 due to a combination of several factors." And this quote: "Deputy Kremlin Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak said in 2022 that he had negotiated an agreement with Ukraine within a few days of the invasion. This settlement would have ended hostilities in exchange for guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. The agreement was however blocked by Putin, who "expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory". A Kremlin spokesman denied the story." According to the drafts - these "security guarantees" were effectively a surrender, as Ukraine had to limit its army to some very small number making any type of resistance impossible. Adding western countries as guarantors is just sugar coating as with stripped down military, assistance will be impossible and there is no such reality in which UK and US will send their troops against Russia. Even as bad as this treaty was for Ukraine, Russians never actually considered this negotiations seriously. Top Ukrainian officials were working on this treaty with third-tier diplomats from the Russia side. At that time, Russia was absolutely sure to overpower Ukraine by force and to use this negotiations as the smoke screen or for propaganda purposes in the future. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russ...
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      " Ukraine only entered into armed conflict" This is such a disgusting formulation that I struggle to be civil when responding to it. Ukraine was invaded, both in 2014 and 2022. Saying that a victim of an invasion "entered into armed conflict" is like saying that a victim of a rape "had sex". An invaded country can either capitulate outright (like Czechoslovakia in 1968), or fight back. Most countries, if their strategic position isn't catastrophic from the onset, tend to fight back: that is the whole point of having a military. And east of the former Iron Curtain, most nations would fight back just based on their terrible experience with former Russian control. From Finland to at least Georgia, "Never again" is the common sentiment. (There are exceptions to this rule, like Slovakia and Hungary.) "because they were promised support that never showed up" Are you rewriting a very recent history? In the first weeks, the West was mostly treading lightly about the situation, because they were afraid of the Big Bad Bear. The German Foreign Minister told the Ukrainian ambassador Melnik in no uncertain terms that they were goners, and Germany sent them some old helmets, ffs. France's Macron had his head full of diplomatic-solution dreams that just never materialized, and sat on the phone to Moscow for weeks. Again, there were important exceptions like the UK or Poland, which started sending efficient help immediately, but the West as a whole only started taking support of Ukraine seriously when the Ukrainian army stopped the initial onslaught and pressured the Russian army north of Kyiv to withdraw. Only then it became clear that the Russians overextended themselves and that the country is not about to fall, at least not immediately. "That's the whole point of sovereignity." According to Putin, who really likes to speak about sovereignty, the whole point of sovereignty is to do whatever you want.
- ywvcbk 2y ago
  I guess something similar could be said about America’s intervention in WW2 (in Europe specifically).
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    I tend to think that destroying the nazis and the empire of japan was worth the extremely high cost. I'd hazard a guess that most ukrainians and russians and koreans and chinese and a whole swath of southeast asian peoples would agree. Anyway, it's not a valid comparison when we're actively refusing to get involved in the conflict in any way that would risk our imperial interests.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ywvcbk 2y ago
      > any way that would risk our imperial interests Entire existence rather.. Nuclear weapons made any direct conflict between major states extremely risky > southeast asian peoples would agree. I specifically excluded Japan. In theory US could have went to war with it while ignoring Europe. I doubt most people in Southeast Asia were particularly concerned about Germany, if anything it made their path to independence more straightforward

darby_nine 2y ago

[flagged]

chii 2y ago
> where ukraine will end up being fed to the wolves. the wolves came regardless. The west's help is no altruism, but it is also what ukraine would need (and more). > Propping up a defense industry that's feeling the lack of demand; forcing europe to coalesce around the us instead of china; restricting european access to cheap russian gas trying to frame it as some sort of american conspiracy to power grab is either you propogating mis/disinformation/propaganda, or just utterly stupid to the point of an own goal (assuming you're aligned with the west).
- darby_nine 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wiseowise 2y ago
    > War was avoidable. The war started in 2014 and Ukraine has been preparing for full scale invasion ever since with or without western help.
    - darby_nine 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - wiseowise 2y ago
        > Just because you lack the imagination or historical understanding to see how else this could have played out doesn't exclude these counterfactuals from possibility. Enlighten me, how I lack imagination or historical understanding about my own country that is being invaded right now.
        darby_nine 2y ago
        [flagged]
        wiseowise 2y ago
        You simplify it too much. There was a million people on maidan in Kyiv. Nation voted for EU - they were done with Russian kleptocrats meddling with Ukrainian politics and influencing country all the time. Looks to me you’re thinking about all of this like it’s some tabletop or RTS game.
        darby_nine 2y ago
        [flagged]
        wiseowise 2y ago
        > So does western media. What does our discussion have to do with western media? > That doesn't mean this was smart No offence, but who are you, someone sitting in thousands kilometers away and not knowing an iota about challenges that Ukraine faced since God knows when, to say what is stupid? Democratic revolution to oust Russian politics out of your country is stupid to you? Were American Revolution war and American Civil war stupid? People died, after all. Could’ve stayed colony or kept slaves. > It didn't. Yes it did, lol. And full scale invasion only solidified the victory. Russian language is increasingly vilified, Russian/Soviet symbols are being removed, corruption is being fought, national identity is being restored. It’s going to be nigh impossible to do again what Russians could afford to do in the open for 30 years.
  - hkpack 2y ago
    > War was avoidable. Ukraine only entered into armed conflict because they were promised support that never showed up. That is such a blatant lie. As a person who was in the middle of it I am so tired of people trying to change the timeline to fit their favourite conspiracy. First period of full scale invasion was driven from the bottom. The president and government was in shock and disorganised trying to work on some sort of a surrender plan while people were standing in lines for ammunition giveaway. President was not able to accept surrender because the most active people where enlisting and fighting and had their first big win - stopping the "3-day operation" and pushing russians away from Kyiv. After than happened, it became obvious how in only few weeks of occupation, russians did numerous war crimes - executing elected leaders in small cities, indiscriminate tortures, raping and so on. Read about what happened in Bucha and Irpin, but that was just the most famous places. I have friends who lived under occupation and it the same things happened in other places. It was systematic. Pushing russia from Kyiv left people in Ukraine in shock what the "brotherly" nation is willing to do just for fun. And it became very clear for everyone what the surrender would mean. But even besides all that, the war in Ukraine shapes and destabilises European politics right now. Allowing russia to win will have a devastating effect in the whole EU.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The president and government was in shock and disorganised trying to work on some sort of a surrender plan while people were standing in lines for ammunition giveaway. This part I wasn't aware of - can you go into more detail, please? The impression from the beginning (and if it was a façade, it seems it was a very elaborate one) was that Zelenskyy and his crew were never for a moment considering surrendering. As in this famous video they made in the early hours of Feb 25th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0En27IsHaL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0En27IsHaL0 But since you were a lot closer events, perhaps you can provide some context we may be missing.
      - hkpack 2y ago
        It is somewhat documented in the Wikipedia page [1]. "During a series of meetings, by the end of March Russia and Ukraine negotiators produced the Istanbul Communiqué, "Key Provisions of the Treaty on Ukraine's Security Guarantees" - a framework of a possible agreement. The agreement would have declared Ukraine to be a neutral state, put a limit on its military, and list Russia and Western countries, including the US and the UK, as guarantors, obliged to assist Ukraine in case of aggression against it. The talks almost reached agreement, with both sides "consider[ing] far-reaching concessions", but stopped in May 2022 due to a combination of several factors." And this quote: "Deputy Kremlin Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak said in 2022 that he had negotiated an agreement with Ukraine within a few days of the invasion. This settlement would have ended hostilities in exchange for guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. The agreement was however blocked by Putin, who "expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory". A Kremlin spokesman denied the story." According to the drafts - these "security guarantees" were effectively a surrender, as Ukraine had to limit its army to some very small number making any type of resistance impossible. Adding western countries as guarantors is just sugar coating as with stripped down military, assistance will be impossible and there is no such reality in which UK and US will send their troops against Russia. Even as bad as this treaty was for Ukraine, Russians never actually considered this negotiations seriously. Top Ukrainian officials were working on this treaty with third-tier diplomats from the Russia side. At that time, Russia was absolutely sure to overpower Ukraine by force and to use this negotiations as the smoke screen or for propaganda purposes in the future. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russ...
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    " Ukraine only entered into armed conflict" This is such a disgusting formulation that I struggle to be civil when responding to it. Ukraine was invaded, both in 2014 and 2022. Saying that a victim of an invasion "entered into armed conflict" is like saying that a victim of a rape "had sex". An invaded country can either capitulate outright (like Czechoslovakia in 1968), or fight back. Most countries, if their strategic position isn't catastrophic from the onset, tend to fight back: that is the whole point of having a military. And east of the former Iron Curtain, most nations would fight back just based on their terrible experience with former Russian control. From Finland to at least Georgia, "Never again" is the common sentiment. (There are exceptions to this rule, like Slovakia and Hungary.) "because they were promised support that never showed up" Are you rewriting a very recent history? In the first weeks, the West was mostly treading lightly about the situation, because they were afraid of the Big Bad Bear. The German Foreign Minister told the Ukrainian ambassador Melnik in no uncertain terms that they were goners, and Germany sent them some old helmets, ffs. France's Macron had his head full of diplomatic-solution dreams that just never materialized, and sat on the phone to Moscow for weeks. Again, there were important exceptions like the UK or Poland, which started sending efficient help immediately, but the West as a whole only started taking support of Ukraine seriously when the Ukrainian army stopped the initial onslaught and pressured the Russian army north of Kyiv to withdraw. Only then it became clear that the Russians overextended themselves and that the country is not about to fall, at least not immediately. "That's the whole point of sovereignity." According to Putin, who really likes to speak about sovereignty, the whole point of sovereignty is to do whatever you want.
ywvcbk 2y ago
I guess something similar could be said about America’s intervention in WW2 (in Europe specifically).
- darby_nine 2y ago
  I tend to think that destroying the nazis and the empire of japan was worth the extremely high cost. I'd hazard a guess that most ukrainians and russians and koreans and chinese and a whole swath of southeast asian peoples would agree. Anyway, it's not a valid comparison when we're actively refusing to get involved in the conflict in any way that would risk our imperial interests.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ywvcbk 2y ago
    > any way that would risk our imperial interests Entire existence rather.. Nuclear weapons made any direct conflict between major states extremely risky > southeast asian peoples would agree. I specifically excluded Japan. In theory US could have went to war with it while ignoring Europe. I doubt most people in Southeast Asia were particularly concerned about Germany, if anything it made their path to independence more straightforward