this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
413 points (90.3% liked)
World News
32351 readers
491 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian
The real question is why does russia want to kill Ukrainians to the last Ukrainian.
Russia repeatedly made peace talk attempts early on. Western powers that actually call those shots rebuffed them. Boris Johnson himself intervened, allegedly.
The answer to the real question, which is why Russia isn't unilaterally ending the war, is that its objectives have not been met and/or the status quo is acceptable to them. The former is the exact same as saying why Russia invaded in the first place.
So why do Western powers want this was to go to the last Ukrainian? NATO military tactics that assume air dominance without the air dominance. Zero expectation of a win, despite the propaganda.
Ukraine dragged one of their own negotiators into the street and shot him in the head.
Russian conditions to even consider peace were pretty insane, like keeping all the territory their initial conquest managed to claim, removing the baltics and other countries bordering Russia from NATO and forbid Ukraine from joining any alliance. Not only could Ukraine not fulfill all those conditions, they would never accept that.
You are confused and are including open demands Russia made of the US / NATO prior to the invasion. Russia has not demanded that Ukraine somehow de-NATOify Baltic countries.
Russia's initial negotiation demands were things like this:
These are in no way insane demands given the context of NATO encirclement, the civil war and ethnic cleansing at their doorstep, and the fact that Russia is obviously never giving up Crimea. It is also... the lead-in to negotiations, which Ukraine started balking at around the same time reports came out about Western prevention of Ukraine participating.
Yea, even those were in no way reasonable. Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine's ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.
Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you're getting that. The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine's application was denied so there's none of that either. And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.
They're very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.
Ukraine haw a very serious Nazi problem that liberals everywhere recognized right up until it became inconvenient for the war narrative. The Nazi problem is part and parcel of the civil war and failure to abide by Minsk II, as those Nazis were the tip of the spear against ethnic Ruasians in Donbas. Disempowering and jailing Nazi war criminals shouldn't be controversial.
Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATO's advancements despite the fall of the Soviet Union, this demand is already a half-measure. Ukraine being militarized and used as a Western forward military base is not something Western countries would tolerate if the roles were reversed.
Ukraine isn't joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.
Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, "you couldn't abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only option". Ukraine and their Western masters had nearly a decade to democratically deal with the breakaway states per their own agreements and chose to instead ramp up a civil war targeting ethnic Russians right on Russia's border. The failure od the status quo ans the West's ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.
Ukraine isn't getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.
Russia could take the whole thing any time they wanted to, lol. They have complete air superiority and a much more powerful arsenal and manpower and tactics. They could do the American thing - the NATO thing - and destroy the rest of the country, targeting Kyiv and civilian infrastructure en masse. Instead, they are choosing a war of attrition that achieves many of their objectives without just rolling over the whole country.
Neutrality is far safer for Ukrainians and always was. A neutral Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded by Russia in the first place.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Like... at all. It's been going on since 2013/2014. Please educate yourself on the derussification efforts undertaken by Ukraine targeted at ethnic Russians as well as their ruthless targeting of the Donbas.
None of what?
Ukraine is already not a sovereign state, lol. Their political leadership was chosen by Nuland et al behind closed doors as part of Euromaidan. Neutrality would actually be the most sovereign they have any chance of being, toyed with through economic courtship rather than couped and destroyed.
And again, Russia can annex Ukraine wherever it wants to. Most of it, at least. Poland would probably claim Western Ukraine for itself with various bullshit excuses.
No idea what these points are other than just lies. Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesn't now. Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia. As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from. They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.
None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasn't joining NATO.
The political leadership Nuland 'selected' was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. That's like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.
Can't find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.
I'm guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. I'd suggest going to some other sources.
UA incorporated Azov Batallion into its official forces aftee the invasion and Right Sector is everywhere. What on earth are you talking about?
You're also losing the plot if you think, "Russia has more Nazis" is relevant to whether this is a reasonable demand in this exact context where the Nazis are the shock troopa against Donbas. Also, Russia has about 5X the population of Ukraine.
Forms of nominal hypocrisy just plain don't matter. This isn't model UN or debate club, it's powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. "Disable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbas" is a reasonable starting ask.
Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasn't threatening anyone, it was undergoing "shock therapy", getting dismembered, and losing tens of millions of lives.
NATO has never been a defensive org. Article 5 has only been triggered once and it was used to launch a war of aggression (amazing). It has taken many offensive and aggreasive moves, however. This narrative that membera join for safety is absurd: it's always an escalatiom, a threat, and is done with this knowlesge. The primary thing is actually bestows is official American military bases in your country.
And as you can see, it mase Ukrainians much more vulnerable
This doesn't counter what I said at all.
UA isn't joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as I've argued, it actually securea a better position for the Ukrainian people, who are currently stuck acting as proxies for Western plans against Russia - and paying for it (have been since 2014).
Because UA continued to shell Donbas. RF and Donbas troops implemented ceasefires repeatedly. RF pulling out unilaterally would have meant giving UA Nazis more kills against folks in Donbas. UA refused to actually work together to end the war there and implement the required referenda.
Delusional.
They're a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldn't have expected "disempower and get rid of your Nazi commandos" to be something you'd oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. I'm confident you were unaware of basically everything I've told you given the babytime propaganda stories you've been telling me. You're welcome!
It absolutely does. UA doesn't even have airfields an F-16 could use anymore. UA has no real air presence at all, which is why the only UA things you hear about with any evidence are manpads. This is also why UA following NATO doctrine in "the counteroffensive" has been such a completr failure. No air support.
Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.
I know you don't. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but it's very uncool to have such strong opinions in something you've never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what it's currently using to destroy ammo dumps and take down planes. Or, better, endeavor to feel okay having no opinion yet.
They have more manpower because they have 5X the population.
UA is also doing forceful conscription and with much more dramatic coercion.
???
Sounds like you haven't heard the recording or you wouldn't be saying such nonsense.
Ah, you have to actually know what ethnic cleansing is and then know what has been happening in UA for the last decade and apply it yourself. The ways in which media outlets and politicians use certain terms is very selective and UA never really got the enemy/target treatment that brown or "bad" countries get.
Anyways, you should research better. Here's a starting point: the National Druzhina.
You'd guess wrong and I think you're projecting, as you clearly have relies entirely on certain dominant narratives to give you opinions rathee than informing yourself.
If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies it's quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.
Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.
Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive. Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.
Also if you want to compare numbers: highest estimate of Azov brigade was 2500, highest for Wagner was 50000. Wagner also got mostly incorporated into the Russian military.
The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO. Thankfully Russia seems to have run out of equipment to annoy us and this stopped completely halfway into it's war with Ukraine.
If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others. You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.
This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.
There it is!
You should have just lead with that.
Vague
Vague
Ukraine made that deal when they gave up nukes, Here's Russia invading anyways
No comment, shit's too complex
"Just concede the most valuable part of your country as a gesture of good faith"
Yes. "Denazify" everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territory... or else.
Sure, totally fair demands. /s
Can you explain why countries want to join NATO? Why do they want to give away some control of their military so badly and risk being dragged into someone else's war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?
It's as if there's a country to the east pushing the idea that they're actually part of Russia, that their culture doesn't exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said country's army should just invade!
Reminds me of that meme where the guy puts something into his bike wheel and then blames someone else for the outcome.
Russia does not want that. That's the answer.
gottem
Seriously, to listen to hexbears talk about the Ukranian invasion, you'd think that the US talked Ukraine into invading Russia just for fun, and that Russia was simply left with no choice.
The killing can stop absolutely any day now - all Putin has to do is pull out and pay for his mess, easy peasy
You should do more listening to hexbears because that sounds nothing like us.
All you have to do is read through this very thread to find numerous examples of hexbears acting like US liberals are primarily (or second only to Ukraine itself) for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
"Why could Ukraine have just bent over and let Russia take it over??? And why couldn't the rest of the world just pretend it never happened?? What about 'Murica in the middle east???"
Sounds pretty familiar to me.
I don't see any of that, personally.
Any chance the liberal in your head is editoriakizing some straw men?
It's literally everywhere in this thread. There's history lessons abound about how bad Ukraine is (with no noticeable criticism of Russia) but no example of what should be done now except to have them give up their sovereignty, their most valuable land, and giving in to Russian's demands.
It's insane to me that these are the same people who would probably say that the US shouldn't have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan, or that the US shouldn't invade Cuba. In their view, since the US did a coup there once, I guess all their people deserve to die and lose their sovereignty? How does that make sense?
"No, we just want the US and Europe to stop giving them weapons to defend themselves!" OK then, then what do you think will happen? More deaths and then a loss of sovereignty obviously. Why is this on them and not on Russia, who simply have the option of stopping their aggression and walking away?
As opposed to the alternative, surrendering to Russia to the last Ukrainian.
This argument assumes that absent US backing Ukraine and Russia would not be at war. Ukraine is not just a pawn between a Russia-US struggle, it’s a state which has asked for assistance in an existential struggle with a much larger authoritarian aggressor. Ukrainians are dying because of Russian aggression, not US backing.
So as someone not close to this war, and as someone who's always been open to the idea that the worst outcome for the war is for it to be drawn out for a long time, and that the west should think more clearly about what's really going on here, but also as someone who would probably have picked up a gun and prepared to die if an invading force I didn't like came for my country ... what's the alternative for the Ukrainians here? Or, do you think Ukraine should be conquered and are fighting an unjust war?
Upholding the Minsk agreement would have been an option up until 2022 at least.
It's tough to hold an agreement as the only participant
by all accounts, Russia held to the letter of that agreement until it was violated. what on earth are you talking about.
I think they made several attempts to keep it intact, but Ukraine couldn't keep it's pet Nazis under control and they kept violating the cease fire.
Christ sake. France and Germany are both on the record saying they never intended to honor the agreement and were just playing for time to arm Ukraine.
???
Not shelling the Donbass for the past 8 years for one. That was them fucking around and the Russian invasion is them finding out.
Apparently their government messed up years ago so now they all have to die. Seriously, look at the replies from hexbear to your question. The obvious answer is that they were attacked, they now have to defend themselves, and the US and Europe are helping them do that. And even if it's just to weaken Russia, it's also what the Ukrainian people would want, just like you or I would want someone to hand us a rifle if someone is attacking us.
But they can't say that, so they have nothing they can say to this question, no answer, no solution, just what coulda shoulda, etc. They can't empathize with Ukrainian citizens protecting their land when invaded, just like you or I would do, because the US sucks. And it does, but that's besides the point. Oh well. Ukraine has some Nazis so I guess Russia gets to invade their neighbors when they feel like it and take Crimea or similar territories, like they've been doing with Georgia and other places near them for awhile now. And it's their neighbors jobs to just allow it and not ally with anyone to prevent it.
Yea, I'm more or less with you. As someone curious to get to know their community better, this isn't, TBH, the best introduction/impression they could have given (ie, the replies to my question). There's a difference between whether there's any justification for Russia's acts of aggression and my actual question of what else could ordinary Ukrainians actually do, which not only requires some empathy for actual real life people being crushed under the boots of governments (something I thought Hexbear might have cared about??) but also raises the serious question, for me, about whether military force is ever morally justifiable (however much russian, ukrainian or western nations are responsible for the escalation to this).
Instead, the reflex by those replying seems to have been to ignore all of that and abstract the situation to higher level political tennis, where avoiding that was the essential point of my question. I get that that's where the heat of the topic is for them (and probably in general), but still ... sighs.
Russia openly states that their goal is the elimination of Ukrainian identity. Literally genocide. And here you are being smug about it, believing your edgy contrarian sentiment is justified by the evils of a country which is not even party to the war.
Talk about rent free mind rot.
Trying to rob the word genocide of all meaning in the way your doing serves only to trivialise actual genocide.
Actual genocide like forced deportation of children? Or do you require actual gas chambers before you care?
Pop quiz, without researching, what was the bloodiest genocide last year?
Yemen?
Tigray
When you've lost the plot, deflect
What a shock, the person accusing other people of not caring about genocide can't actually answer the question, because they don't actually give a shit about genocides themselves, they just use it as an emotional cudgel to try and win debate points.
removing children from a warzone isn't forced deportation. those kids were returned when requested.
'Put the children back in the warzone!
Also let's stop pretending the west is above that. Key difference is that we let the people fleeing western' foreign policy' drown in the mediterranian sea, rather than housing them.
You should be angry at the propagandists that made you selectively trivialize genocide this way.