4 ms·

The US has been pouring military aid into Ukraine since 2014 and the net result is that the Russian army mobilised and despite terrible losses is marching acros

by roenxi 1y ago

The US has been pouring military aid into Ukraine since 2014 and the net result is that the Russian army mobilised and despite terrible losses is marching across Ukraine. If the US had poured more resources in, the mobilisation would only have happened faster. The chain of events you seem to be suggesting is something like Russia has good relations with their neighbour, then that neighbour's government collapses in a highly suspicious coup and then, presumably, the US military starts to overtly move in and set up military bases. If you think that is the path to peace I'm not sure what lessons to even try to draw from WWII, it doesn't look comparable to me apart from a common thread of strategic lunacy. But it is remarkably aggressive and would just have accelerated the timeline for Russia's invasion. I don't know what you expect Russia would do, but given their actual response to NATO's involvement in Ukraine it would be aggressive and undiplomatic if NATO had been more visibly involved. I suppose we wouldn't have to worry about escalating to nukes today, since we'd have answered that question some time in the 2010s and the rivers of blood shed would be congealing by now.

wat10000 1y ago
> highly suspicious coup Ah, well. You should just lead with “I support the Russian invasion,” it would save time.
- roenxi 1y ago
  I'm sticking to theme here, if you feel a highly suspicious coup justifies invading a country then you're definitely not working at a level where you're drawing the right lessons from WWII. How did you make the leap from that to supporting an invasion?
- hollerith 1y ago
  There's a huge difference between wanting the Russian invasion to succeed and judging that the US's opposing it is not worth the cost (in Ukrainian lives and US money) or the risks (of the Kremlin doing something desperate or vengeful if the invasion turns ugly on them, like helping the Iranians and North Koreans obtain ICBMs capable of hitting US cities).
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Note the phrase I quoted. I’m not saying this because they argue against intervention. I say this because they’re parroting the exact nonsense talking points that Russia uses to justify the invasion.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      Just because the Russian leadership says it does not automatically make it false. I'm saddened that I need to explain that to anybody.
      - wat10000 1y ago
        Just because I think it’s a load of horseshit doesn’t mean I reached that conclusion solely on the basis of believing the opposite of what Russia says.
        hollerith 1y ago
        Sure, but you are dismissing someone just because he noticed and spoke about one of the things that spokespersons for the Russian regime noticed and spoke about.
mopsi 1y ago
> The chain of events you seem to be suggesting is something like Russia has good relations with their neighbour, then that neighbour's government collapses in a highly suspicious coup and then, presumably, the US military starts to overtly move in and set up military bases. 1. Russia and Ukraine did not have good relations. Ever since the USSR collapsed, Russia has been harassing Ukraine with everything from territorial enroachments to poisoning their presidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-43611547 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-43611547 Andrey Illarionov, who was Putin's senior advisor at the time of the Tuzla island conflict, credits that as the pivot point where Putin first articulated territorial claims over Ukraine, far wider than only the island. He recalls a specific meeting with top Russian military leadership on 17th September 2003 as the moment when Putin first presented the long-term strategy to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty with the same pseudohistoric mumbojumbo we've come to know. 2. There's nothing "highly suspicious" about the Maidan. Ukraine's government torpedoed a trade agreement with the EU at intense Russian pressure (which included economic embargo), people came to the street to voice their protest, the pro-Russian government responded with increasing violence, which ultimately led to them fleeing the country after the police snipers killed over a hundred people. Ukraine's parliament voted to hold snap elections and a new government was voted into office. The events are extremely well documented, known by the hour, and any insinuations of "CIA-backed coup" are purge garbage, an insult to intelligence, and a sign that the person spreading them has not bothered to learn about the topic at all. Since when are general elections a coup? 3. Nobody was building any military bases in Ukraine before Russia invaded, and even then it took years before Ukraine got any serious backing. The whole narrative of the US enroaching on Russia is again a total garbage, completely detached from facts. Until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US government was in the process of dismantling and removing Cold War era assets from Europe. For example, they deactivated all heavy armour brigades and removed all tanks from Europe by 2013. Since you keep posting the same debunked narratives and obviously have an interest in this topic, why not spend some time to learn about the actual history of relations? Why keep reposting the same propaganda talking points that have no substance?
- roenxi 1y ago
  > Since you keep posting the same debunked narratives and obviously have an interest in this topic, why not spend some time to learn about the actual history of relations? Why keep reposting the same propaganda talking points that have no substance? I don't know if I ever mentioned it to you so I will talk to this because clear communication is important - I can tell you're very passionate about this topic but your posts are long rambling tangents that don't address the points I'm making. They're not persuasive to me, and they look a bit desperate if I'm being frank. I don't mind you posting because it does seem genuine and if it makes you feel better who am I to complain just because I disagree? But if you actually expect me to change my opinions tangents and random trivia aren't likely to work. Eg, in this case (1) is a non issue. Russia has disputes like that with pretty much all their neighbours as far as I know. Things like that don't stop countries having good relations. India and China have similar disputes and they still manage a reasonably productive working relationship. If that was where Ukraine-Russia relations were right now that'd be a fantastic improvement over the status quo and I'm sure in such a hypothetical the Russians would be overjoyed to have such a tolerant government running Ukraine. (2) is a wild claim that a coup over international relations is normal where I really don't see why you feel that is a justified position or how you expect to persuade anyone. There is a photo floating around of Victoria Nuland handing out food to protesters in Ukraine; that there was US involvement at some level is beyond question. (3) Military bases are a reasonable hypothesis. There was talk about bringing Ukraine into NATO and even without that it has been established that there were CIA bases [0]. It isn't a big step to go from that to a proper military installation. And you can see on the map that NATO is indeed encroaching on Russia's borders [1]. That is just a matter of fact; no matter how you feel about Russia's response. [0] https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-maintains-12-secret-bases-212250351.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-maintains-12-secret-bases-212... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

by roenxi 1y ago

wat10000 1y ago

> highly suspicious coup Ah, well. You should just lead with “I support the Russian invasion,” it would save time.

roenxi 1y ago
I'm sticking to theme here, if you feel a highly suspicious coup justifies invading a country then you're definitely not working at a level where you're drawing the right lessons from WWII. How did you make the leap from that to supporting an invasion?
hollerith 1y ago
There's a huge difference between wanting the Russian invasion to succeed and judging that the US's opposing it is not worth the cost (in Ukrainian lives and US money) or the risks (of the Kremlin doing something desperate or vengeful if the invasion turns ugly on them, like helping the Iranians and North Koreans obtain ICBMs capable of hitting US cities).
- wat10000 1y ago
  Note the phrase I quoted. I’m not saying this because they argue against intervention. I say this because they’re parroting the exact nonsense talking points that Russia uses to justify the invasion.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Just because the Russian leadership says it does not automatically make it false. I'm saddened that I need to explain that to anybody.
    - wat10000 1y ago
      Just because I think it’s a load of horseshit doesn’t mean I reached that conclusion solely on the basis of believing the opposite of what Russia says.
      - hollerith 1y ago
        Sure, but you are dismissing someone just because he noticed and spoke about one of the things that spokespersons for the Russian regime noticed and spoke about.

mopsi 1y ago

> The chain of events you seem to be suggesting is something like Russia has good relations with their neighbour, then that neighbour's government collapses in a highly suspicious coup and then, presumably, the US military starts to overtly move in and set up military bases. 1. Russia and Ukraine did not have good relations. Ever since the USSR collapsed, Russia has been harassing Ukraine with everything from territorial enroachments to poisoning their presidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-43611547 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-43611547 Andrey Illarionov, who was Putin's senior advisor at the time of the Tuzla island conflict, credits that as the pivot point where Putin first articulated territorial claims over Ukraine, far wider than only the island. He recalls a specific meeting with top Russian military leadership on 17th September 2003 as the moment when Putin first presented the long-term strategy to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty with the same pseudohistoric mumbojumbo we've come to know. 2. There's nothing "highly suspicious" about the Maidan. Ukraine's government torpedoed a trade agreement with the EU at intense Russian pressure (which included economic embargo), people came to the street to voice their protest, the pro-Russian government responded with increasing violence, which ultimately led to them fleeing the country after the police snipers killed over a hundred people. Ukraine's parliament voted to hold snap elections and a new government was voted into office. The events are extremely well documented, known by the hour, and any insinuations of "CIA-backed coup" are purge garbage, an insult to intelligence, and a sign that the person spreading them has not bothered to learn about the topic at all. Since when are general elections a coup? 3. Nobody was building any military bases in Ukraine before Russia invaded, and even then it took years before Ukraine got any serious backing. The whole narrative of the US enroaching on Russia is again a total garbage, completely detached from facts. Until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US government was in the process of dismantling and removing Cold War era assets from Europe. For example, they deactivated all heavy armour brigades and removed all tanks from Europe by 2013. Since you keep posting the same debunked narratives and obviously have an interest in this topic, why not spend some time to learn about the actual history of relations? Why keep reposting the same propaganda talking points that have no substance?

roenxi 1y ago
> Since you keep posting the same debunked narratives and obviously have an interest in this topic, why not spend some time to learn about the actual history of relations? Why keep reposting the same propaganda talking points that have no substance? I don't know if I ever mentioned it to you so I will talk to this because clear communication is important - I can tell you're very passionate about this topic but your posts are long rambling tangents that don't address the points I'm making. They're not persuasive to me, and they look a bit desperate if I'm being frank. I don't mind you posting because it does seem genuine and if it makes you feel better who am I to complain just because I disagree? But if you actually expect me to change my opinions tangents and random trivia aren't likely to work. Eg, in this case (1) is a non issue. Russia has disputes like that with pretty much all their neighbours as far as I know. Things like that don't stop countries having good relations. India and China have similar disputes and they still manage a reasonably productive working relationship. If that was where Ukraine-Russia relations were right now that'd be a fantastic improvement over the status quo and I'm sure in such a hypothetical the Russians would be overjoyed to have such a tolerant government running Ukraine. (2) is a wild claim that a coup over international relations is normal where I really don't see why you feel that is a justified position or how you expect to persuade anyone. There is a photo floating around of Victoria Nuland handing out food to protesters in Ukraine; that there was US involvement at some level is beyond question. (3) Military bases are a reasonable hypothesis. There was talk about bringing Ukraine into NATO and even without that it has been established that there were CIA bases [0]. It isn't a big step to go from that to a proper military installation. And you can see on the map that NATO is indeed encroaching on Russia's borders [1]. That is just a matter of fact; no matter how you feel about Russia's response. [0] https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-maintains-12-secret-bases-212250351.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/cia-maintains-12-secret-bases-212... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO