6 ms·

> That did not help, did it? I'm sorry, but this is the type of claim of someone who gets news from the Joe Rogan podcast. Ukraine managed to defend its capi

> That did not help, did it? I'm sorry, but this is the type of claim of someone who gets news from the Joe Rogan podcast. Ukraine managed to defend its capital from annexation, liberated thousands of miles of territory, and managed to improve its protection of civilians thanks to air defense systems, has lower casualty rates than Russia, and now is starting to create a buffer zone into Russian territory. How isn't this a sign that it didn't help? Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. The drip feed has been one of the worse strategic decisions in this conflict, almost like there's no strategy in place. But Ukraine needs to develop its deterrence.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 2y ago
I do not get news from Joe Rogan podcasts, and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to claim so. Something that people seem to not realize is that the Minsk Agreements refer to two accords (Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015) aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, specifically in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia. That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved. With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress, given his emphasis on unconventional approaches to negotiation and relationships with key stakeholders, potentially (and hopefully) providing a better opportunity to bring an end to the long-stalemated conflict. > Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. I am sorry but providing additional aid at this stage would likely prolong the war rather than bring about a resolution. This protracted conflict has already pushed global economies toward collapse, with ordinary taxpayers shouldering the financial burden of a war they never chose to participate in. It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process.
- petre 2y ago
  > I am sorry but providing additional aid at this stage would likely prolong the war rather than bring about a resolution. That would only give Putin time to replenish his forces and attack again. The time to act is now. If the Russians lose, we might be looking at another USSR style dissolution of Russia: more breakaway Central Asian and Caucasus republics and maybe a break from Russian interference. Make no mistake, these are the people that Putin is grinding in this war. This is a good opportunity for the US to weaken Russia without firing a shot and consolidate its power in Eastern Europe with reliable allies.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    > This is a good opportunity for the US to weaken Russia Have you ever considered that US giving Ukraine lots of money & weapons weaken the US, too? <conspiracy theory> Imagine if Ukraine and Russia worked together to achieve it. </conspiracy theory>
- libertine 2y ago
  > I do not get news from Joe Rogan podcasts, and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to claim so. I simply stated that's the same level of shallow analysis and severe lack of understanding of what's at play, sprinkled with mystical thinking and conspiracy theories, which is prevalent in the right-wing media and amplified by Russian propaganda. I don't think it's inappropriate, it might just be a coincidence. > (...) where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia. That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved Just to point out two red flags here: - The separatists didn't have alleged support from Russia, there were Russian troops in both Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. By the way, those regions were at peace until Russia sent "little green men"[0]. The same happened in Georgia by the way, in 2008. Where do you think "separatists" got a Buk 9M38 to shoot down a commercial airliner killing 300 people? [1] - Russia did not just claim that Ukraine failed to implement UNCONSTITUTIONAL parts of the Minsk agreement, Russia itself failed to comply with the agreement - and they were the ones on sovereign Ukrainian territory, killing Ukrainians. An agreement goes both ways, so the general sense was that Russia never looked to abide by the agreement, just gradually turning Ukraine ungovernable with cancer from within, by subverting the Ukrainian constitution. From the words of Macron in the talk with Putin before the escalation of 2022: "They are in front of my eyes! It clearly states that Ukraineʼs proposal should be agreed with representatives of certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions in a trilateral meeting. This is exactly what we propose to do. So I donʼt know where your lawyer studied law. I just look at these texts and try to apply them! And I donʼt know which lawyer could tell you that in a sovereign state, the texts of laws are made up of separatist groups, not democratically elected authorities."[2] > With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress So your idea of a diplomatic effort is to appease a dictator with the subversion of Ukraine, a sovereign country of 40 million people, and target of genocide, that was at peace and posed a threat to no one. To the point of surrendering their nuclear arsenal in exchange for the guarantee of their sovereignty - with the signature of the USA representatives. > It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process. The only irrational thing is to push the Russian narrative that Ukraine should be left on its own, for the illusion of internal stability that stems mainly from propaganda. Again, this just confirms the same ill-informed narrative Joe Rogan-type podcasts are pushing around, some of these podcasts being funded by Russia Today operations.[3] I won't claim its deliberate, but as time passes it increasingly looks like so. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrain... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 [2] https://babel.ua/en/news/80618-bloodbath-and-involved-zelensky-the-media-published-a-transcript-of-the-conversation-between-putin-and-macron-which-happened-shortly-before-the-invasion https://babel.ua/en/news/80618-bloodbath-and-involved-zelens... [3] https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential...
mrguyorama 2y ago
>But Ukraine needs to develop its deterrence. The failure to protect Ukraine without it needing to develop nukes is the end of nuclear non-proliferation. You either have nukes, or Russia will make up some bullshit to invade you.
- libertine 2y ago
  That's why I think it's imperative to help Ukraine. Because if Ukraine loses in a year you'll have: - Iran suddenly pops out with nukes; - Then Saudis will show off their own nuclear deterrence; - South Korea will need to have nukes against NK and Russia; - For sure Poland doesn't want to be left hanging out to dry with Trump, so for sure they'll get it; - Germany might as well do it; - Vietnam if they can develop it; - Baltic states might make a coalition to develop nukes; - Japan?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

johnisgood 2y ago

I do not get news from Joe Rogan podcasts, and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to claim so. Something that people seem to not realize is that the Minsk Agreements refer to two accords (Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015) aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, specifically in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia. That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved. With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress, given his emphasis on unconventional approaches to negotiation and relationships with key stakeholders, potentially (and hopefully) providing a better opportunity to bring an end to the long-stalemated conflict. > Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. I am sorry but providing additional aid at this stage would likely prolong the war rather than bring about a resolution. This protracted conflict has already pushed global economies toward collapse, with ordinary taxpayers shouldering the financial burden of a war they never chose to participate in. It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process.

petre 2y ago
> I am sorry but providing additional aid at this stage would likely prolong the war rather than bring about a resolution. That would only give Putin time to replenish his forces and attack again. The time to act is now. If the Russians lose, we might be looking at another USSR style dissolution of Russia: more breakaway Central Asian and Caucasus republics and maybe a break from Russian interference. Make no mistake, these are the people that Putin is grinding in this war. This is a good opportunity for the US to weaken Russia without firing a shot and consolidate its power in Eastern Europe with reliable allies.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  > This is a good opportunity for the US to weaken Russia Have you ever considered that US giving Ukraine lots of money & weapons weaken the US, too? <conspiracy theory> Imagine if Ukraine and Russia worked together to achieve it. </conspiracy theory>
libertine 2y ago
> I do not get news from Joe Rogan podcasts, and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to claim so. I simply stated that's the same level of shallow analysis and severe lack of understanding of what's at play, sprinkled with mystical thinking and conspiracy theories, which is prevalent in the right-wing media and amplified by Russian propaganda. I don't think it's inappropriate, it might just be a coincidence. > (...) where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia. That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved Just to point out two red flags here: - The separatists didn't have alleged support from Russia, there were Russian troops in both Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. By the way, those regions were at peace until Russia sent "little green men"[0]. The same happened in Georgia by the way, in 2008. Where do you think "separatists" got a Buk 9M38 to shoot down a commercial airliner killing 300 people? [1] - Russia did not just claim that Ukraine failed to implement UNCONSTITUTIONAL parts of the Minsk agreement, Russia itself failed to comply with the agreement - and they were the ones on sovereign Ukrainian territory, killing Ukrainians. An agreement goes both ways, so the general sense was that Russia never looked to abide by the agreement, just gradually turning Ukraine ungovernable with cancer from within, by subverting the Ukrainian constitution. From the words of Macron in the talk with Putin before the escalation of 2022: "They are in front of my eyes! It clearly states that Ukraineʼs proposal should be agreed with representatives of certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions in a trilateral meeting. This is exactly what we propose to do. So I donʼt know where your lawyer studied law. I just look at these texts and try to apply them! And I donʼt know which lawyer could tell you that in a sovereign state, the texts of laws are made up of separatist groups, not democratically elected authorities."[2] > With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress So your idea of a diplomatic effort is to appease a dictator with the subversion of Ukraine, a sovereign country of 40 million people, and target of genocide, that was at peace and posed a threat to no one. To the point of surrendering their nuclear arsenal in exchange for the guarantee of their sovereignty - with the signature of the USA representatives. > It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process. The only irrational thing is to push the Russian narrative that Ukraine should be left on its own, for the illusion of internal stability that stems mainly from propaganda. Again, this just confirms the same ill-informed narrative Joe Rogan-type podcasts are pushing around, some of these podcasts being funded by Russia Today operations.[3] I won't claim its deliberate, but as time passes it increasingly looks like so. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrain... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 [2] https://babel.ua/en/news/80618-bloodbath-and-involved-zelensky-the-media-published-a-transcript-of-the-conversation-between-putin-and-macron-which-happened-shortly-before-the-invasion https://babel.ua/en/news/80618-bloodbath-and-involved-zelens... [3] https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential...

mrguyorama 2y ago

>But Ukraine needs to develop its deterrence. The failure to protect Ukraine without it needing to develop nukes is the end of nuclear non-proliferation. You either have nukes, or Russia will make up some bullshit to invade you.

libertine 2y ago
That's why I think it's imperative to help Ukraine. Because if Ukraine loses in a year you'll have: - Iran suddenly pops out with nukes; - Then Saudis will show off their own nuclear deterrence; - South Korea will need to have nukes against NK and Russia; - For sure Poland doesn't want to be left hanging out to dry with Trump, so for sure they'll get it; - Germany might as well do it; - Vietnam if they can develop it; - Baltic states might make a coalition to develop nukes; - Japan?