Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

ā€œPeople think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldnā€™t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we havenā€™t lost a single American in this war,ā€ McConnell said. ā€œMost of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So itā€™s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.ā€

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

  • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    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.

    Russiaā€™s initial negotiation demands were things like this:

    • Denazification.
    • Demilitarization.
    • No application to NATO.
    • Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.
    • Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

    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.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Yea, even those were in no way reasonable. Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraineā€™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 youā€™re getting that. The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraineā€™s application was denied so thereā€™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.

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Yea, even those were in no way reasonable.

        Theyā€™re very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.

        1. 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 shouldnā€™t be controversial.

        2. Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATOā€™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.

        3. Ukraine isnā€™t joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.

        4. Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, ā€œyou couldnā€™t 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 Russiaā€™s border. The failure od the status quo ans the Westā€™s ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.

        5. Ukraine isnā€™t getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.

        Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraineā€™s ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

        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 wouldnā€™t have been invaded by Russia in the first place.

        Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where youā€™re getting that.

        Then you havenā€™t been paying attention. Likeā€¦ at all. Itā€™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.

        The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraineā€™s application was denied so thereā€™s none of that either

        None of what?

        And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

        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.

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago
          1. It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so thatā€™s a meaningless point.
          2. The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.
          3. Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.
          4. One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.
          5. They may now, depending on how the war goes.

          No idea what these points are other than just lies. Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesnā€™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 wasnā€™t joining NATO.

          The political leadership Nuland ā€˜selectedā€™ was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. Thatā€™s like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

          Canā€™t find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

          Iā€™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. Iā€™d suggest going to some other sources.

          • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so thatā€™s a meaningless point.

            UA incorporated Azov Batallion into its official forces aftee the invasion and Right Sector is everywhere. What on earth are you talking about?

            Youā€™re also losing the plot if you think, ā€œRussia 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 donā€™t matter. This isnā€™t model UN or debate club, itā€™s powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. ā€œDisable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbasā€ is a reasonable starting ask.

            The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.

            Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasnā€™t threatening anyone, it was undergoing ā€œshock 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: itā€™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

            Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.

            This doesnā€™t counter what I said at all.

            UA isnā€™t joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as Iā€™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).

            One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.

            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.

            They may now, depending on how the war goes.

            Delusional.

            No idea what these points are other than just lies.

            Theyā€™re a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldnā€™t have expected ā€œdisempower and get rid of your Nazi commandosā€ to be something youā€™d oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. Iā€™m confident you were unaware of basically everything Iā€™ve told you given the babytime propaganda stories youā€™ve been telling me. Youā€™re welcome!

            Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesnā€™t now.

            It absolutely does. UA doesnā€™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 ā€œthe counteroffensiveā€ has been such a completr failure. No air support.

            Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia.

            Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.

            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.

            I know you donā€™t. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but itā€™s very uncool to have such strong opinions in something youā€™ve never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what itā€™s currently using to destroy ammo dumps and take down planes. Or, better, endeavor to feel okay having no opinion yet.

            They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

            They have more manpower because they have 5X the population.

            UA is also doing forceful conscription and with much more dramatic coercion.

            None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasnā€™t joining NATO.

            ???

            The political leadership Nuland ā€˜selectedā€™ was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. Thatā€™s like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

            Sounds like you havenā€™t heard the recording or you wouldnā€™t be saying such nonsense.

            Canā€™t find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

            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 ā€œbadā€ countries get.

            Anyways, you should research better. Hereā€™s a starting point: the National Druzhina.

            Iā€™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. Iā€™d suggest going to some other sources.

            Youā€™d guess wrong and I think youā€™re projecting, as you clearly have relies entirely on certain dominant narratives to give you opinions rathee than informing yourself.

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies itā€™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 itā€™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.

              • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                Ā·
                1 year ago

                If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies itā€™s quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.

                Youā€™re not listening. Iā€™ve already told you, explicitly, twice why RF is making that demand, and neither time was it, ā€œwell they just donā€™t like Nazisā€.

                Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.

                Right sector and its offshoots are very powerful in the military and the military is calling a lot of the shots.

                Also, have you noticed how hard it is to find pictures of UA soldiers without either a Wolfangel or a Right Sector reference? Probably not because I am not convinced you read anything about this topic, butā€¦ itā€™s surprisingly difficult.

                And again, it doesnā€™t matter if Russia did it too or does it more or whatever impetus is making you try to find these facile gotcha moments. Iā€™m not the Russian state and I donā€™t care if a nation-state are hypocrites in rhetoric or whatever (though RF didnā€™t incorporate a Nazi regiment into their armed forces, so thereā€™s that).

                In terms of negotiation demands being reasonable, all that matters is whether the material ask is directly addressing the grievance and would support peace. This does both.

                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.

                Azov was significantly weakened in Mariupol and UA didnā€™t retake that city. They still have a large presence, as an official part of the UA armed forces, in Lviv, Kyiv, Odessa, and distributed near the front. They still appear in an inordinate number of press photos and stories, which speaks to their privileged status.

                Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.

                You got the order wrong.

                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.

                Given your comfort with saying things you donā€™t know, I wonā€™t take your word for it on the exact frequency of military exercises. But I will point out that NATO itself has carried out more and greater aggressions, and ceased to have any ostensible purpose after the fall of the USSR. Mask off, it continued under its actual goal of furthering the interests of US imperialism, which Baltic countries happily oblige.

                If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others.

                Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya are the most notable.

                You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.

                This comparison trivializes the holocaust, which us not out of character for a NATO fan from the Baltics. In addition, this is again a piece of propaganda, a thin pretense for the actual goal of Balkanizing Yugoslavia. The NATO bombings were brutal and targeted civilian infrastructure.

                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.

                You have been wrong about nearly everything youā€™ve said, even just simple facts. Now you want an excuse to leave rather than just doing it - ah, my information is just ā€œRussianā€ (nearly everything Iā€™ve said comes from Western and Ukrainian sources).

                How pitiful.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  Ā·
                  1 year ago

                  Like half your points are either insane or just provably wrong and thereā€™s an essay for each point. Going over each one separately only to find out the only source is Russian state media is more than a little demotivating, especially on my phone, when arguing with people like you.

                  Like the NATO offensive war part: the only one that would be an offensive war is the Serbian one and all the others listed are definitely not offensive wars initiated by NATO.

                  And then thereā€™s the insane claims like Russia could win if they just wanted to, Russia has total air superiority since the start of the war, Ukraine military is run by nazies, NATO members join by being threatened by NATO. There are probably others Iā€™m forgetting. The only people saying something that batshit is Russian state media and their strategy has been to overwhelm you with bullshit to debunk so either you are get all your bullshit there or you are a professional and Iā€™m not going to waste my time with playing whack the Russian propaganda.

                  • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    Ā·
                    1 year ago

                    Like half your points are either insane or just provably wrong and thereā€™s an essay for each point.

                    Interesting that you proved none of them wrong and just said made-up nonsense in response then, isnā€™t it?

                    Going over each one separately only to find out the only source is Russian state media is more than a little demotivating, especially on my phone, when arguing with people like you.

                    And now youā€™re just lying. So pitiful.

                    Like the NATO offensive war part: the only one that would be an offensive war is the Serbian one and all the others listed are definitely not offensive wars initiated by NATO.

                    You are 100% incorrect and I invite you to spend literally any amount of time learning about NATOā€™s involvement in both Libya and Afghanistan. If you were a student Iā€™d having a talk with your parents because you keep making things up rather than reading and learning.

                    Maybe you donā€™t know how to find information? Put the words ā€œLibyaā€ ā€œNATOā€ and ā€œbombā€, read the results, ask yourself if NATO was defending lol.

                    And then thereā€™s the insane claims like Russia could win if they just wanted to

                    Yes obviously. Only gullible people think otherwise. Military folks expected RF to immediately curbstomp Ukraine because they thought RF would use the tactics of, dare I say, NATO countries and just bomb everything war crimes style. RF chose a very different tactic. I know you donā€™t know why they did that, but you should do yourself a favor and read about it.

                    Russia has total air superiority since the start of the war

                    A basic fact. RF bombed UA airfields right off the bat and UA has had very little air presence while RF does basically whatever it wants outside of manpad resustence. You are free to go spend any amount of time learning these basic facts.

                    Ukraine military is run by nazies

                    Actually I didnā€™t say that, though you csn tell the military is run by people in that neighborhood based on their statements. Remember when the UA MoD endorsed calling Chechens orcs and dipping bullets in lard? Of course you donā€™t, you havenā€™t paid attention. But you are free to review the extent to which Nazis have been incorporated into UAā€™s military both formally and informally.

                    NATO members join by being threatened by NATO.

                    I didnā€™t say that either. In UAā€™s case it was less a threat than a coup, though UA isnā€™t joining NATO soon anyways.

                    There are probably others Iā€™m forgetting. The only people saying something that batshit is Russian state media and their strategy has been to overwhelm you with bullshit to debunk so either you are get all your bullshit there or you are a professional and Iā€™m not going to waste my time with playing whack the Russian propaganda.

                    And now we return to your habit of, ā€œeverything I donā€™t know is Russian propagandaā€. Like I said before, my sources are Western and Ukrainian. At no point in this conversation have you asked a question, sought information, or demonstrated knowledge of anything Iā€™m talking about. But you have repeated some confused poorly-remembered talking points and seem to be very comfortable with lying when you donā€™t know something.

                    Work on that, buddy. I donā€™t think I should have to tell you that lying is bad.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  Ā·
                  1 year ago

                  This comparison trivializes the holocaust, which us not out of character for a NATO fan from the Baltics. In addition, this is again a piece of propaganda, a thin pretense for the actual goal of Balkanizing Yugoslavia. The NATO bombings were brutal and targeted civilian infrastructure

                  With depleted uranium bombs, no less!

    • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Denazification.

      Vague

      Demilitarization.

      Vague

      No application to NATO.

      Ukraine made that deal when they gave up nukes, Hereā€™s Russia invading anyways

      Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.

      No comment, shitā€™s too complex

      Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

      ā€œJust concede the most valuable part of your country as a gesture of good faithā€

    • dsmk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      Ā·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes. ā€œDenazifyā€ 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

      NATO encirclement

      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 elseā€™s war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?

      Itā€™s as if thereā€™s a country to the east pushing the idea that theyā€™re actually part of Russia, that their culture doesnā€™t exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said countryā€™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.

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Yes. ā€œDenazifyā€ everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territoryā€¦ or else.

        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. Iā€™ll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RFā€™s invasion.

        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 elseā€™s war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?

        These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And letā€™s just say Iā€™m dubious that youā€™re actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that theyā€™re 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 theyā€™re 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 Ukraineā€™s toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?

        Itā€™s as if thereā€™s a country to the east pushing the idea that theyā€™re actually part of Russia, that their culture doesnā€™t exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said countryā€™s army should just invade!

        Case in point that youā€™re not curious in any real answers.

        Reminds me of that meme where the guy puts something into his bike wheel and then blames someone else for the outcome.

        Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.

        • dsmk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Oh, Iā€™m liberal now. Weird as I was a fascist just before I left reddit. In a few hours someone will call me a communist.

          You should be honest with yourself and at least become familiar with the context of the demands before forming an opinion. Iā€™ll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RFā€™s invasion.

          Iā€™m very honest with myself. I also try to not bullshit myself into believing itā€™s only an Ukraine problem.

          Russia didnā€™t invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis. After Yanukovych weirdly reverted his position on Europe (European Unionā€“Ukraine Association Agreement) and got kicked out, Russia decided to invade to support all those ā€œRussian 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. Itā€™s 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 ā€œnazisā€, 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 couldnā€™t 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 ā€œinterestingā€ views. In fact, hereā€™s a picture of young Rogozin with the flag of the party in the background. Iā€™ll also give you a hint: theyā€™re 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 thatā€™s 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! Iā€™m sure that helps reducing support for nazis. /s

          These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And letā€™s just say Iā€™m dubious that youā€™re actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that theyā€™re 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 theyā€™re 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 Ukraineā€™s toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?

          If thatā€™s 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. Thereā€™s no way heā€™s helping NATO so much without being part of all that. Surely you can see the guy is a plant?

          Or maybe thereā€™s a simpler explanation (Occamā€™s 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: ā€œmaybe 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 Putinā€™s On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians and Address concerning the events in Ukraine, itā€™s not that hard to imagine that thereā€™s a much simpler reason.

          What lead to the change in Ukraineā€™s political class? Other than Yanukovychā€™s reversal and people getting pissed? I donā€™t know. If youā€™re suggesting any foul play, Iā€™d like to remind you that Russia intervened directly in Belarus and Kazakhstan, so apparently thatā€™s all good.

          Case in point that youā€™re not curious in any real answers.

          Iā€™m curious, thatā€™s 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. Iā€™m 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 ā€œethnic 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 canā€™t filter out everything that doesnā€™t 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 Iā€™m the dumb guy who doesnā€™t want real answers?

          Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.

          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 donā€™t need to make excuses up to defend their actions.

          • Like any major power, they donā€™t give a fuck about Ukraine or the people that live in Ukraine. Itā€™s not a nice thing, but hey, it is what it is.

          • No, Russia didnā€™t have to invade. No, Ukraine wasnā€™t going to invade Russia (nuclear obviously, plus they struggle to take control of their own territoryā€¦). And no, thereā€™s no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (theyā€™ve been trying since the early 2000ā€™sā€¦).

          Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine. Just donā€™t try to come up with bs excuses for what theyā€™re doing. You like Russia and you like what theyā€™re doing. I on the other hand donā€™t agree with theyā€™re doing and also have a similar position when other countries do the same, so you can see why I donā€™t support their invasion of Ukraine.

          • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            Oh, Iā€™m liberal now. Weird as I was a fascist just before I left reddit. In a few hours someone will call me a communist.

            Fascism is just an offshoot of liberalism so this isnā€™t a zinger

            Iā€™m very honest with myself. I also try to not bullshit myself into believing itā€™s only an Ukraine problem.

            You definitely tell stories and deflect and make guesses but present them as if theyā€™re fact so gonna disagree with you, champ

            Russia didnā€™t invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis.

            Yeah duh, or at least not proximally or the exact Nazis being referred to. This feels like saying things just to feel like youā€™re lecturing but it doesnā€™t mean anything. The next two paragraphs donā€™t address what I said or answer my question.

            But yes, Ukraine had ā€œnazisā€, but so did Russia.

            Cool, what impact does that have re: Russiaā€™s demand? Itā€™s a pretty liberal thing to try to come up with pointless gotchas or like entire states are hypocritical or something so you donā€™t 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?

            I recommend reading about people like Aleksandr Dugin

            Ahahahahahahaha

            I guess we need to invade Russia, right?

            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 Iā€™ve said.

            Also, in 2019 the far-right party (Svoboda) received 2.16% of the votes in the whole country. Not even 3%.

            Congratulations youā€™ve 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. Iā€™m 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. Iā€™m not even a tough grader. Just looking for very basic material context, and you couldnā€™t do it. I even gave you a hint!

            If thatā€™s the case, then Putin must be part of the conspiracy?

            This makes no sense.

            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: ā€œmaybe we should be friends with that big guy over there, just in case the local bully decides to invade usā€.

            This is a form of liberalism called idealism, and itā€™s as hilarious as it is wrong. People just got together, for no clear reason, and thought a bunch until change happened. Actually donā€™t mention ā€œfor no clear reasonā€, because this begins the thought of, ā€œwell 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?

            Of course my lIbErAl mind is too dumb to understand high level politics like you do

            You are perfectly capable of understanding anything Iā€™ve mentioned. Youā€™re 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.

            but if one reads Putinā€™s On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians and Address concerning the events in Ukraine, itā€™s not that hard to imagine that thereā€™s a much simpler reason.

            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.

            What lead to the change in Ukraineā€™s political class? Other than Yanukovychā€™s reversal and people getting pissed? I donā€™t know.

            You skimmed all of that and failed to notice the coup, lol.

            Iā€™m curious, thatā€™s why I sometimes actually read what Mr Putin says

            Your behavior says the exact opposite

            To know the real answers you canā€™t filter out everything that doesnā€™t fit your view.

            Ahahahahahahaha

            My apologies, let me make it easier for you

            See the gears turning. Youā€™ve been criticized! What to say in response? Hmmā€¦ well this Maoo jerk just said you used simplistic examples because you canā€™t understand whatā€™s happening on the planet due to ignorance and worldview. Thatā€™s a meany thing to say! Better turn toā€¦ uhā€¦ condescension? Yeah, and say ā€œIā€™ll make it simplerā€! Thatā€™ll get 'em!

            Because I probably do have to spell it out: I said you were being simplistic. Making it simpler is dunking on yourself.

            Russia, which is not governed by morons, decided to invade Ukraine to accomplish certain objectives.

            You jumped into this thread to flail around because you didnā€™t understand what those were, and continue to miss the most basic points made about them, lol. No wonder this is left vague.

            They knew what they were doing, you donā€™t need to make excuses up to defend their actions.

            Now youā€™re doing the ā€œIā€™m rubber youā€™re glueā€ thing. Amazing how contradiction brings out the inner child in liberals.

            Like any major power, they donā€™t give a fuck about Ukraine or the people that live in Ukraine. Itā€™s not a nice thing, but hey, it is what it is.

            Who are the ā€œtheyā€? Be specific. This will help you on your journey on learning how to know things.

            No, Russia didnā€™t have to invade.

            According to what logic? Who makes any country invade another? This type of thinking isnā€™t even appropriate for the category of thing weā€™re talking about. Iā€™m giving you babyā€™s first realpolitik here and nothing is sinking in.

            No, Ukraine wasnā€™t going to invade Russia

            lol who on earth are you talking to? Do you think I said anything like that? If not, tell me who youā€™re talking to. Be specific. Does the person in your head saying these things look like a muppet? Did you win your argument with them?

            And no, thereā€™s no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (theyā€™ve been trying since the early 2000ā€™sā€¦).

            UA isnā€™t 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.

            Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine.

            Liberal brain strikes again. Good guys vs. bad guys. If you criticize me, you must support the bad guys. I have a big brain.

            Just donā€™t try to come up with bs excuses for what theyā€™re doing. You like Russia and you like what theyā€™re doing.

            Now weā€™ve graduated to the ā€œlying their ass offā€ portion of disagreeing with a liberal.

            I on the other hand donā€™t agree with theyā€™re doing and also have a similar position when other countries do the same, so you can see why I donā€™t support their invasion of Ukraine.

            Ah yes, thatā€™s the thing weā€™re talking about: whether or not you support Russia invading Ukraine.