Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.
Exact full quote from CNN:
āPeople think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldnāt be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we havenāt lost a single American in this war,ā McConnell said. āMost of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So itās actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.ā
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063
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 isnāt 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.
Russiaās 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 alsoā¦ 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 Ukraineās ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.
Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where youāre getting that. The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraineās application was denied so thereās none of that either. And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.
Theyāre 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 shouldnāt be controversial.
Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATOās 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 isnāt 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, āyou couldnāt abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only optionā. 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 Russiaās border. The failure od the status quo ans the Westās ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.
Ukraine isnāt 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 wouldnāt have been invaded by Russia in the first place.
Then you havenāt been paying attention. Likeā¦ at all. Itās 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 doesnāt 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 wasnāt joining NATO.
The political leadership Nuland āselectedā was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. Thatās like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.
Canāt find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.
Iām guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. Iād 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?
Youāre also losing the plot if you think, āRussia has more Nazisā 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 donāt matter. This isnāt model UN or debate club, itās powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. āDisable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbasā is a reasonable starting ask.
Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasnāt threatening anyone, it was undergoing āshock therapyā, 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: itās 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 doesnāt counter what I said at all.
UA isnāt joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as Iāve 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.
Theyāre a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldnāt have expected ādisempower and get rid of your Nazi commandosā to be something youād oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. Iām confident you were unaware of basically everything Iāve told you given the babytime propaganda stories youāve been telling me. Youāre welcome!
It absolutely does. UA doesnāt 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 āthe counteroffensiveā has been such a completr failure. No air support.
Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.
I know you donāt. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but itās very uncool to have such strong opinions in something youāve never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what itās 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 havenāt heard the recording or you wouldnāt 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 ābadā countries get.
Anyways, you should research better. Hereās a starting point: the National Druzhina.
Youād guess wrong and I think youāre 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 itās 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 itās 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.
Vague
Vague
Ukraine made that deal when they gave up nukes, Hereās Russia invading anyways
No comment, shitās too complex
āJust concede the most valuable part of your country as a gesture of good faithā
Yes. āDenazifyā everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territoryā¦ 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 elseās war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?
Itās as if thereās a country to the east pushing the idea that theyāre actually part of Russia, that their culture doesnāt exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said countryās 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.
Kind of amazing how liberals will tell themselves little stories and even believethem rather than actually having to learn something.
You should be honest with yourself and at least become familiar with the context of the demands before forming an opinion. Iāll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RFās invasion.
These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And letās just say Iām dubious that youāre actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that theyāre taking a deal to be subservient to the United States, which usually requires their political class, and therefore economic ruling class, to see an interest in doing do. Not that theyāre correct - the US is slowly deindustrializing its European allies as we speak. The reason why those interests won out? Those are specific historical stories. Try answering your own question but for Ukraineās toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?
Case in point that youāre not curious in any real answers.
Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.
Oh, Iām liberal now. Weird as I was a fascist just before I left reddit. In a few hours someone will call me a communist.
Iām very honest with myself. I also try to not bullshit myself into believing itās only an Ukraine problem.
Russia didnāt invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis. After Yanukovych weirdly reverted his position on Europe (European UnionāUkraine Association Agreement) and got kicked out, Russia decided to invade to support all those āRussian speakersā. Of course, there was even a referendum, but as Igor Girkin said, they had the guns and politicians did as they were told.
People like to forget that far-right groups like the Azov Battalion and some of far-left/anarchist groups that joined the fight were only created after the invasion, after the Ukrainian army completely failed to do their job. Itās as if the ultra-nationalist and people with more extreme views in general are the first to react to an aggression against their country! /s
But yes, Ukraine had ānazisā, but so did Russia. I recommend reading about people like Aleksandr Dugin (and his views), which seems to be liked even by Putin himself. As a space fan and a fan of some of the Soviet accomplishments, I couldnāt help but notice that when the war started, the boss of Roscosmos was Dmitry Rogozinā¦ an old member of the Russian National Unity party, which had some āinterestingā views. In fact, hereās a picture of young Rogozin with the flag of the party in the background. Iāll also give you a hint: theyāre nazi as fuck.
I guess we need to invade Russia, right? And make some demands where Russia gives away part of their territoryā¦ at least thatās what the very well informed and smart people such as yourself think should happen? Or this only applies to when Russia has a problem with someone else?
Also, in 2019 the far-right party (Svoboda) received 2.16% of the votes in the whole country. Not even 3%. And then Russia comes in, invades Ukraine again and transforms Azov into national heroes. Well, good fucking job Russia! Iām sure that helps reducing support for nazis. /s
If thatās the case, then Putin must be part of the conspiracy? The guy managed to give a new life to the alliance and even recruited 2 new countries where popular support to joining used to be really low. Thereās no way heās helping NATO so much without being part of all that. Surely you can see the guy is a plant?
Or maybe thereās a simpler explanation (Occamās razor, for the cool kids).
Maybe people read what Russian politicians say, look at the size of their country, remember what happened during the days of the Soviet Union (and now at what happened to Ukraine) and say: āmaybe we should be friends with that big guy over there, just in case the local bully decides to invade usā.
Of course my lIbErAl mind is too dumb to understand high level politics like you do, but if one reads Putinās On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians and Address concerning the events in Ukraine, itās not that hard to imagine that thereās a much simpler reason.
What lead to the change in Ukraineās political class? Other than Yanukovychās reversal and people getting pissed? I donāt know. If youāre suggesting any foul play, Iād like to remind you that Russia intervened directly in Belarus and Kazakhstan, so apparently thatās all good.
Iām curious, thatās why I sometimes actually read what Mr Putin says, am aware of his obsession with Peter the Great and his conquest of the Azov sea, etc. I also watch a bit of Russian television as they have interesting views on countries around them. Iām not even talking about weekly threats of nuking European cities or higher ups at Russia Today suggesting that Ukrainian kids should be killed in a riverā¦ Did you know that Kazakhstan now has a lot of āethnic Russiansā in need of protection? A bit weird since everything was fine until they stopped playing ball with Russiaā¦
To know the real answers you canāt filter out everything that doesnāt fit your view. You have people like Putin making up excuses for his view that Ukraine is not really a proper countryā¦ yet you decide not to read it and to outright ignore it. And Iām the dumb guy who doesnāt want real answers?
My apologies, let me make it easier for you:
Russia, which is not governed by morons, decided to invade Ukraine to accomplish certain objectives. They knew what they were doing, you donāt need to make excuses up to defend their actions.
Like any major power, they donāt give a fuck about Ukraine or the people that live in Ukraine. Itās not a nice thing, but hey, it is what it is.
No, Russia didnāt have to invade. No, Ukraine wasnāt going to invade Russia (nuclear obviously, plus they struggle to take control of their own territoryā¦). And no, thereās no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (theyāve been trying since the early 2000āsā¦).
Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine. Just donāt try to come up with bs excuses for what theyāre doing. You like Russia and you like what theyāre doing. I on the other hand donāt agree with theyāre doing and also have a similar position when other countries do the same, so you can see why I donāt support their invasion of Ukraine.
Fascism is just an offshoot of liberalism so this isnāt a zinger
You definitely tell stories and deflect and make guesses but present them as if theyāre fact so gonna disagree with you, champ
Yeah duh, or at least not proximally or the exact Nazis being referred to. This feels like saying things just to feel like youāre lecturing but it doesnāt mean anything. The next two paragraphs donāt address what I said or answer my question.
Cool, what impact does that have re: Russiaās demand? Itās a pretty liberal thing to try to come up with pointless gotchas or like entire states are hypocritical or something so you donāt need to look any deeper. Are you able to provide even the most basic explanation for why the RF would want UA to hand over/imprison their Nazis?
Ahahahahahahaha
Already did. First in 1918, then in the early 90s (it was called the shock doctrine).
Anyways, you seem to again be arguing with some liberal in your head that bases everything on abstract rules and gotchas. Has nothing to do with me or anything Iāve said.
Congratulations youāve caught up with liberal arguments from 2022. It is, in fact, peak liberalism to think that election results are the same as political power, or power in general. Iām sure the Roma murdered in tacitly state-supported pogroms are delighted to know Svoboda only got a few percent in an election.
Anyways, you failed to answer my question. Iām not even a tough grader. Just looking for very basic material context, and you couldnāt do it. I even gave you a hint!
This makes no sense.
This is a form of liberalism called idealism, and itās as hilarious as it is wrong. People just got together, for no clear reason, and thought a bunch until change happened. Actually donāt mention āfor no clear reasonā, because this begins the thought of, āwell why would I need to think about material causes?ā, which puts you into dangerous territory of reading or understanding something before having an opinion on it. Best to just make shit up and have little cartoon characters voice your opinions and tell little stories, right?
You are perfectly capable of understanding anything Iāve mentioned. Youāre unwilling and uninterested, and are a victim of propaganda and your society. If you chose honesty, things would go a lot better, but you so far you seem unable to drop the habit of making things up to fill in the gaps. Very defensive behavior, which is typical for Reddit-brained liberlaism.
Reading Putin and extracting value from it requires already knowing all of the things he mentions, as he is just a singular politician struggling in his own interest, attempting to make very particular cases to very particular audiences. I amā¦ dubious that any of that happened here.
You skimmed all of that and failed to notice the coup, lol.
Your behavior says the exact opposite
Ahahahahahahaha
See the gears turning. Youāve been criticized! What to say in response? Hmmā¦ well this Maoo jerk just said you used simplistic examples because you canāt understand whatās happening on the planet due to ignorance and worldview. Thatās a meany thing to say! Better turn toā¦ uhā¦ condescension? Yeah, and say āIāll make it simplerā! Thatāll get 'em!
Because I probably do have to spell it out: I said you were being simplistic. Making it simpler is dunking on yourself.
You jumped into this thread to flail around because you didnāt understand what those were, and continue to miss the most basic points made about them, lol. No wonder this is left vague.
Now youāre doing the āIām rubber youāre glueā thing. Amazing how contradiction brings out the inner child in liberals.
Who are the ātheyā? Be specific. This will help you on your journey on learning how to know things.
According to what logic? Who makes any country invade another? This type of thinking isnāt even appropriate for the category of thing weāre talking about. Iām giving you babyās first realpolitik here and nothing is sinking in.
lol who on earth are you talking to? Do you think I said anything like that? If not, tell me who youāre talking to. Be specific. Does the person in your head saying these things look like a muppet? Did you win your argument with them?
UA isnāt joining NATO in the near term either. If you stopped making shit up and asked questions or read things, you might say things that are germane to this conversation.
Liberal brain strikes again. Good guys vs. bad guys. If you criticize me, you must support the bad guys. I have a big brain.
Now weāve graduated to the ālying their ass offā portion of disagreeing with a liberal.
Ah yes, thatās the thing weāre talking about: whether or not you support Russia invading Ukraine.
Russia does not want that. Thatās the answer.
gottem
Seriously, to listen to hexbears talk about the Ukranian invasion, youād 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.
āWhy could Ukraine have just bent over and let Russia take it over??? And why couldnāt the rest of the world just pretend it never happened?? What about 'Murica in the middle east???ā
Sounds pretty familiar to me.
I donāt see any of that, personally.
Any chance the liberal in your head is editoriakizing some straw men?
Itās literally everywhere in this thread. Thereās 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 Russianās demands.
Itās insane to me that these are the same people who would probably say that the US shouldnāt have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan, or that the US shouldnāt 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?
āNo, we just want the US and Europe to stop giving them weapons to defend themselves!ā 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?
Show one example, lib.
deleted by creator