(February 16, 2023 at 4:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: Do the Ukrainians want to be ruled by a Russian puppet government? I'd say that the 2014 revolution and subsequent elections suggest otherwise.

This seems like a good question to me. The answer depends in part on whom we define as "the Ukrainians." 

The Ukrainians in the eastern part of the country, especially in the regions that were added to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922, think of themselves as Russian. They speak Russian, they prefer a pro-Russian government, if not exactly a "puppet" one. 

Note that of the many people who have fled Ukraine in the past year, over 2 million have gone to Russia. 

Zelensky won a landslide election by promising to make peace with Russia. That's what people there want. When the US kicked the pro-Russian government out and replaced it with a pro-US one, this was not done with the approval of the people. After that, constant shelling of the Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine began. 

Quote:At the heart of the matter, I think, we have who is responsible for this conflict.
Since the Russians are the ones who placed troops in another country, we say they are responsible.
The Russians claim that they were forced to do this by "The West", by NATO expansion, and so the US becomes responsible... and thus we have these two not-really-compatible points of view and the war continues until the smaller child gives up.

Assigning responsibility sort of depends on the point in time at which you start measuring. The US considers acts of war to include things other than military invasion. Intentionally destroying another country's economy, for example, is an act of war according to the Pentagon. How about removing elected officials and replacing them with hand-picked substitutes favorable to a foreign power? 

Certainly bombing the Nordstream pipelines is an act of war. 

There is no question that the US has taken actions in Ukraine that were intended to threaten and weaken Russia. Scholars of the region have been saying for 30 years that NATO in Ukraine would be an existential threat to Russia. Obama, for example, wisely said that getting Ukraine into NATO was not sufficiently in America's interests, considering the predictable result. 

You're correct that there's a great deal of childish thinking. We're hearing a lot of "He started it because he hit me back." 

Anyone who wants more tanks, more weapons, more fighting, is a childish macho man, and pro-war. Just because we don't like one side or the other, that doesn't make it anti-war to support more war.

(February 16, 2023 at 6:01 am)Belacqua Wrote: You're correct that there's a great deal of childish thinking. We're hearing a lot of "He started it because he hit me back." 

Yeah...from russia, lol....

Quote:Anyone who wants more tanks, more weapons, more fighting, is a childish macho man, and pro-war. Just because we don't like one side or the other, that doesn't make it anti-war to support more war.

Or maybe they just don't want their fucking children stolen and sent to russia to be reeducated?

1. Ukraine officials became a country in 1991 that's the only definition we require. The rest of your rubbish is just trying to shift the blame to NATO or pretend this is ambiguous when it's anything but. Oh, and America didn't blow up the Nordstream pipeline that's conspiracy bullshit along with most of what you say.

Quote:You're correct that there's a great deal of childish thinking. We're hearing a lot of "He started it because he hit me back." 

Nope, one person started it in Russia and the rest is simply a response to that.

Quote:Anyone who wants more tanks, more weapons, more fighting, is a childish macho man, and pro-war. Just because we don't like one side or the other, that doesn't make it anti-war to support more war.

Wanting more weapons so a country can defend itself from an invasion. Has nothing to do with being "Macho" or " Not liking the other side" and no it's possible to not like wars while acknowledging sometimes you need to fight to defend yourself and others.

The most pro-war position possible is allowing an aggressor state to benefit from an elective invasion.

(February 16, 2023 at 6:01 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 16, 2023 at 4:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: Do the Ukrainians want to be ruled by a Russian puppet government? I'd say that the 2014 revolution and subsequent elections suggest otherwise.

This seems like a good question to me. The answer depends in part on whom we define as "the Ukrainians." 

The Ukrainians in the eastern part of the country, especially in the regions that were added to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922, think of themselves as Russian. They speak Russian, they prefer a pro-Russian government, if not exactly a "puppet" one. 

Note that of the many people who have fled Ukraine in the past year, over 2 million have gone to Russia. 

Zelensky won a landslide election by promising to make peace with Russia. That's what people there want. When the US kicked the pro-Russian government out and replaced it with a pro-US one, this was not done with the approval of the people. After that, constant shelling of the Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine began. 

Quote:At the heart of the matter, I think, we have who is responsible for this conflict.
Since the Russians are the ones who placed troops in another country, we say they are responsible.
The Russians claim that they were forced to do this by "The West", by NATO expansion, and so the US becomes responsible... and thus we have these two not-really-compatible points of view and the war continues until the smaller child gives up.

Assigning responsibility sort of depends on the point in time at which you start measuring. The US considers acts of war to include things other than military invasion. Intentionally destroying another country's economy, for example, is an act of war according to the Pentagon. How about removing elected officials and replacing them with hand-picked substitutes favorable to a foreign power? 

Certainly bombing the Nordstream pipelines is an act of war. 

There is no question that the US has taken actions in Ukraine that were intended to threaten and weaken Russia. Scholars of the region have been saying for 30 years that NATO in Ukraine would be an existential threat to Russia. Obama, for example, wisely said that getting Ukraine into NATO was not sufficiently in America's interests, considering the predictable result. 

You're correct that there's a great deal of childish thinking. We're hearing a lot of "He started it because he hit me back." 

Anyone who wants more tanks, more weapons, more fighting, is a childish macho man, and pro-war. Just because we don't like one side or the other, that doesn't make it anti-war to support more war.

(Bold mine)

Actually, Russia's 'justification' for this war is a lot closer to, 'I thought he was going to think about maybe threatening to hit me, so I hit him back first.'

Boru

(February 16, 2023 at 4:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: The Western world, led by the US, is trying to stop the war by returning to the previous status quo, where Ukraine retains its pre-war borders.... ideally including Crimea.

It looks as though the "Western world" may not be as enthusiastic as some might wish.

Bloomberg is reporting today that different countries are having trouble fulfilling their promises to send tanks. It turns out that the promised numbers aren't available, or will need extensive repairs. They're saying that April looks doable, which probably means September. 

As I pointed out before, promises like this have a tendency to weaken over time. 

Polls show that the number of Americans who want to send weapons is decreasing.

Also Bloomberg and several other sources, including some in Ukraine and Poland, are saying that Ukraine is fast running short of ammunition. They're begging for more, while at least one NATO official is telling them they ought to shoot less. The Ukrainians have lowered the age of conscription to 16, and every day there are new videos of military-age men getting snatched off the streets and taken against their will to fight. This is not sustainable. 

As I've said, time and numbers are on Russia's side. Despite what's been alleged for a long time, they still have plenty of weapons. 

The anti-Russia enthusiasm will continue to wane, I think. Europe needs their gas and oil. Nobody really has the stomach for the kind of protracted conflict that would result from a constant drip-drip of weapons sent to Ukraine. Nor does anybody want the kind of full-on nuclear exchange that would put an end to it. Germany, for example, is very aware that they are paying a far higher price for this war than the US is, and they are likely to want that to stop. 

It will be interesting to see what happens to Zelensky. Remember that many American favorites who were useful temporarily regretted it in the end. Saddam Hussein, for example, was happy to take US weapons all the time he was helping the US to weaken Iran. But he didn't stay a favorite forever. Fortunately for Zelensky he has millions socked away in foreign accounts, as the Panama Papers showed, so he may be able to retire comfortably in a safer area, and buy some nice clothes for a change.

Actually, it was more "I'm going to beat you up and take your lunch money because I want to, and when challenged on why I just make shit up that doesn't make any sense to excuse it"

And more delusional babbling by Bel. The weapons are coming and Russia will lose and no amount of him desperately cherrypicking things to things to maintain the delusion otherwise is going to work.

Oil, gas, money. To hell with ukranian lives, I suppose. How anti-war is it to say that making war unsustainable is too expensive?