3 ms·

The thing is Ukraine didn't join NATO. - That's just word play without context. Ukraine didn't join NATO because Russia attacked it. If Ukraine had joined NATO,

The thing is Ukraine didn't join NATO. - That's just word play without context. Ukraine didn't join NATO because Russia attacked it. If Ukraine had joined NATO, Russia couldn't have attacked it because Russia would then be fighting NATO, all over Europe, and not just the Ukraine military. (This again highlights one of the stupidity of Ukranian leadership - if you want to join any military alliance why announce it publicly? Why not do it discreetly?). > ... would you say there's no good and bad there ... That is where we Indians got lucky. Our founding leaders were smart enough to realise that India joining NATO would lead to China and / or Russia becoming our enemy or India forming a military alliance with Russia would make the west our enemy. And thus, we told them both bluntly that we wouldn't join any alliance against both, because we understood that you all are superpowers. So leave us alone. That confounded them as while it was in the interest of all superpowers to gain India as an ally in Asia, it was also in their interest to make sure that India didn't ally with their opponent. Thus, when they realised we were sincere, they fought with each other to keep us neutral! We have willingly sacrificed our sovereignty many times to the superpowers, to show due deference to them because our leaders know that superpower politics is not about good or bad, but simply about might and self-interest. Ofcourse, we weren't fools to fully capitulate to them completely. That is why we allied with other like-minded people and formed the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) because even superpowers dare not fight the majority of the world. That's a weakness of being a superpower - (1) they had to portray themselves as moral and superior, and (2) once a superpower starts calling another superpower an enemy, the superpowers can rarely politically unite as one against you. And that gives a non-aligned state political breathing space. We used that breathing space to strengthen the political unity of our country, to re-build our economy and our military. And so today, the superpowers interfere less and less in our affairs. Ukrainian politicians, on the other hand, invited the superpowers to meddle in their country's political affairs and thus broke the political unity of their country - one leader turned to Russia to protect his political power, another turned to the UK, and now the current one vacillates between the US and European superpowers to remain in power. I am sorry to sound so callous and apathetic - but do you see how Ukraine's problem is of their own making? No country can help Ukraine unless Ukraine politically unites as one, rather than fight amongst themselves calling their own countrymen as agents for the Russian or British or American - that is why there is a civil war there. Yes, Russia will win. Unless NATO or EU joins the war to help Ukraine, Russian defeat is impossible. Ukraine's military has no manpower today to launch any kind of meaningful counter-offensive against the Russians. That is why they can only defend, and they are unable to do that properly because they are ill-equipped. And so they are forced to retreat, ever so slowly, however bravely they fight. The Russians have already captured 20% of their territory, which Ukraine has no realistic hope of ever winning back. The new hope that Ukraine has, that Russia will stop fighting once its economy collapses, is just a fantasy. Neither is its economy going to collapse nor will it stop fighting even if it does. Ukraine isn't Japan or Afghanistan - a defeat against Ukraine, and Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat to Russia. And they will never allow it. (And it is precisely because of their experience with WW1 and WW2 that they are unwilling to let go of Ukraine or let NATO expand). India too was once enslaved by a superpower, because of weak political leadership. It's a lesson hard learnt. My advise to the Ukrainians would be stop fighting a war they cannot win, surrender and get the best deal you can from Russia to have peace. And then rebuild your country. Territory does not matter, people do - how many more Ukrainians need to die before Ukraine accepts it cannot win? I don't say this lightly - India too has lost territory to war against both China and Pakistan. We still stopped fighting when it was necessary to do so, while accepting these losses. As a civilization we have learnt that it is not the boundaries that matter but the people that make up the nation. (Sorry to be preachy ... ).

mopsi 10mo ago
> That is where we Indians got lucky. Our founding leaders were smart enough to realise that India joining NATO would lead to China and / or Russia becoming our enemy or India forming a military alliance with Russia would make the west our enemy. And thus, we told them both bluntly that we wouldn't join any alliance against both, because we understood that you all are superpowers. So leave us alone. This is exactly the pursuit of neutrality that Ukraine chose, except that Russia degenerated into a totalitarian dictatorship that became expansionist as it radcalized and began violating Ukraine's sovereign territory. The first notable incident occurred in 2003 over Tuzla island. The "leave us alone" part didn't work out. The unprovoked nature of Russia's invasion of Ukraine discredited neutrality to such an extent that even Sweden, which had been neutral for over 200 years, abandoned it and made a sharp pivot toward regional cooperation. With an increasingly hostile Russia, neutrality serves only to divide European countries and undermine their cooperation in collective security. > My advise to the Ukrainians would be stop fighting a war they cannot win, surrender and get the best deal you can from Russia to have peace. And then rebuild your country. Russia is not offering any deals other than the wholesale destruction of the Ukrainian state and ethnicity. The choice is between taking a chance on the battlefield or voluntarily exposing oneself to genocide. Thus, support for continuing the war remains high.
- thisislife2 10mo ago
  > This is exactly the pursuit of neutrality that Ukraine chose ... in the beginning. Ukraine's earlier leaders were indeed pragmatic. They even kept the country united. It is only when Ukrainian leaders started inviting foreign interference in their political affairs, and even taking sides with them, that Ukraine's polity became divided. And all the superpowers took advantage of that, to protect their own interest. Including Russia. This is what Ukraine still fails to understand even now - when you have a dispute with another superpower, you settle the matter with them directly, even if the terms are unfavourable to you (this is also what the then Ukranian government did with Tuzla Island incident). You absolutely don't invite their enemies and threaten them (unless your country is facing an existential threat from them, like India was, when the US threatened to launch a nuclear attack on us during the Bangladesh Liberation wars). Anyone who says Ukraine should not be a neutral country does not have their welfare in mind. Ukraine, in the near future, has no other choice but to be neutral. Its existence depends on it.

mopsi 10mo ago

> That is where we Indians got lucky. Our founding leaders were smart enough to realise that India joining NATO would lead to China and / or Russia becoming our enemy or India forming a military alliance with Russia would make the west our enemy. And thus, we told them both bluntly that we wouldn't join any alliance against both, because we understood that you all are superpowers. So leave us alone. This is exactly the pursuit of neutrality that Ukraine chose, except that Russia degenerated into a totalitarian dictatorship that became expansionist as it radcalized and began violating Ukraine's sovereign territory. The first notable incident occurred in 2003 over Tuzla island. The "leave us alone" part didn't work out. The unprovoked nature of Russia's invasion of Ukraine discredited neutrality to such an extent that even Sweden, which had been neutral for over 200 years, abandoned it and made a sharp pivot toward regional cooperation. With an increasingly hostile Russia, neutrality serves only to divide European countries and undermine their cooperation in collective security. > My advise to the Ukrainians would be stop fighting a war they cannot win, surrender and get the best deal you can from Russia to have peace. And then rebuild your country. Russia is not offering any deals other than the wholesale destruction of the Ukrainian state and ethnicity. The choice is between taking a chance on the battlefield or voluntarily exposing oneself to genocide. Thus, support for continuing the war remains high.

thisislife2 10mo ago
> This is exactly the pursuit of neutrality that Ukraine chose ... in the beginning. Ukraine's earlier leaders were indeed pragmatic. They even kept the country united. It is only when Ukrainian leaders started inviting foreign interference in their political affairs, and even taking sides with them, that Ukraine's polity became divided. And all the superpowers took advantage of that, to protect their own interest. Including Russia. This is what Ukraine still fails to understand even now - when you have a dispute with another superpower, you settle the matter with them directly, even if the terms are unfavourable to you (this is also what the then Ukranian government did with Tuzla Island incident). You absolutely don't invite their enemies and threaten them (unless your country is facing an existential threat from them, like India was, when the US threatened to launch a nuclear attack on us during the Bangladesh Liberation wars). Anyone who says Ukraine should not be a neutral country does not have their welfare in mind. Ukraine, in the near future, has no other choice but to be neutral. Its existence depends on it.