Pretty relevant, is WWIII going to kick off?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Headlines Russia invades Ukraine
- Thread starter RaikouLover
- Start date
Article 5 isn't an automatic rule, Poland would have to decide to actually call on NATO to defend it and even then it could be a response as mild as the US moving more air defenses into Polish territory. The missile strike was just 15 miles from the border of Ukrainian land, not something like a missile strike into Warsaw. I'd be surprised if any government acts like this is a big deal since de-escalation is in everyone's best interest.
So no lol not WW3.
Edit: From what I've read it looks like the strike was the debris from a Ukrainian air defense missile intercepting a Russian missile. This was 100% an accident.
Last edited:
I think this video still comes across as most impartial explanation for “Why Russia invaded.”
The blood and soil reasons in Putin’s crazy speech are completely illegitimate, but I think we can even put aside the “Security reasons” that Russia cites most heavily and which most pro-Ukraine voices dismiss (for their own reasonable arguments). Putting the highly contended Russian Security concerns aside, we can come to explanatory reasons for the invasion that likely both sides can agree are true/real world issues.
The reasons that the above video cite for Russia’s Ukrainian invasion that are very material and endure even the above filters are as follows:
- Russia’s economy is super dependent on supplying Europe with fossil fuels
- Ukraine’s natural resources give it great potential to out-compete Russia if it can Develop modern infrastructure to deliver it.
- Those gas/oil resources are especially rich in Crimea’s territory, where Crimea is also the most important port in the Black Sea, control of it being extremely important to Russian trade. Ie. Crimean control is extremely important to Russia.
- But without mainland Ukrainian water, supplying Crimea with the water it needs to survive is extremely costly and difficult
- Key pipes for Russia delivery of natural gas to Europe run through Ukraine, which is paid dues by Russia to use normally.
- Ukraine lacks the technology to develop its fossil fuel resources, but Western energy companies have that in spades.
Even a 2014 Ukraine with Crimea anexed still has the potential to develop into a considerable competitor that is able to harass Russia by cutting off Crimea’s water.
All of this against a backdrop of declining Russian population, where Russia’s standing army and equipment will— over time— become progressively weaker, not stronger.
It’s possible to imagine Putin seeing Ukrainian freedom as an existential threat, if not to Russia itself than certainly to the current Russian order. A threat that will only get harder, not easier to deal with militarily in the future.
These above reasonings I think of as much much harder to write off as Russian propaganda because they are too material, and show far more weakness and vulnerability than what Russia would like us to understand. Also they in no way invalidate Ukrainian moral claims to autonomy, freedom, etc etc.
And finally here comes opinion about how to consider the above: if Russia doesn’t want to get screwed by Ukrainian modernization, it can get good scrub—
Russia’s got endless food and energy; it won’t starve even alone. The only real threat to Russia from the state of play is to its civil stability— the threat that lack of ability to provide its citizens with consumer goods, global entertainment and connectivity to the global community without open trade could cause a civil uprising akin to the one that contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union— which had good GDP in military-related productivity but citizens pissed at lack of goods that would make their lives better. Modern Russians have even higher standard of living expectations, but if they want it that is achievable by liberalizing and democratizing even further. They can also become a modern Liberal Democracy and compete with a future Ukraine on even footing instead of forcing Europe to trade with an autocracy with… force.
Thoughts on the above? Do these sound like real drivers, and if so how explanatory?
Last edited:
The entire thing is just... dumb.
It's sorta like that time Russia went to war with Japan, then after a little bit they gave up.
In terms of military victory, Russia usually isn't one who comes to mind. Apart from the times they team up with actually Military viable countries, Russia's history suggest they struggle to make any real war impact on their own. They look at a smaller country, think to themselves that they're big enough to beat them instantly, and then do so. Granted, 7 or so years ago that did work against Crimera, which is where this war (which has been going on for quite some time) started. It's only when Russia gather their troops near the border did the warning bells go off, and that's when this thread was made. Really, Putin's shot himself in the foot. Ukraine won't fall, and overall just be disadvantageous to Russia.
That is my 2 cents tho, might not be worth much.
Still, it's unlikely Russia will win.
It's sorta like that time Russia went to war with Japan, then after a little bit they gave up.
In terms of military victory, Russia usually isn't one who comes to mind. Apart from the times they team up with actually Military viable countries, Russia's history suggest they struggle to make any real war impact on their own. They look at a smaller country, think to themselves that they're big enough to beat them instantly, and then do so. Granted, 7 or so years ago that did work against Crimera, which is where this war (which has been going on for quite some time) started. It's only when Russia gather their troops near the border did the warning bells go off, and that's when this thread was made. Really, Putin's shot himself in the foot. Ukraine won't fall, and overall just be disadvantageous to Russia.
That is my 2 cents tho, might not be worth much.
Still, it's unlikely Russia will win.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...ponsible-poland-blast-nato-source-2022-11-16/
Love it when news media makes a war that's already extremely unstable even more unstable by running articles without confirmation. This surely helps everyone and doesn't cause the conflict to stretch even further by inciting western aggression, no sir.
Love it when news media makes a war that's already extremely unstable even more unstable by running articles without confirmation. This surely helps everyone and doesn't cause the conflict to stretch even further by inciting western aggression, no sir.
I feel the need to respond to this specific part because the range itself has been quoted as likely being accurate by British government officials, all the way back in 2007. Common Dreams has a good article on this here. I understand that it is surprising for many people that the death toll could be so high, but it should seem equally surprising that so many media and government organizations never seem to quote these higher death counts.
The insinuation that I have picked the supposed "high end" of the death toll for political purposes is nonsense; the number of people who died in that catastrophic war (and those who continue to die as a result of it) are irrelevant to the quoted point at hand. I have no problem with someone deciding to post lower, albeit somewhat suspect in context, death toll numbers. But I am appalled at any accusation that I am "manipulating their deaths" (???) to prove a political point; the point is that wars with disastrous effects happen for some set of valid/invalid reasons. Not that "the USA does this stuff and nobody says anything".
I'm not going to respond to the specific assertions about Ukrainian history and their relationship with Nazism apart from saying that the moralizing of Ukrainian nationalism during WW2 as "picking the lesser of two bad options" is ridiculous. Ukrainian nationalists during WW2 were willing collaborators with the Nazis, and the crimes they committed are inexcusable.
It is not the fact that some Ukrainians participated in this back in WW2 that is concerning; it is the fact that those who did are being celebrated today as if they didn't! Nationalist-hero worship is not surprising among a populace, but government commemoration of those who collaborate with Nazis is. Zelensky is on record for saying that it's a "cool thing" for a portion of Ukraine to consider Stepan Bandera, known Nazi collaborator in WW2, a hero without any kind of immediate qualification. This is not the kind of "denouncing" I was expecting, conditional on the importance a person has to a country's history and independence. Zelensky's own bodyguards have been photographed alongside him with Nazi patches like the Totenkopf, optics so bad that people were claiming it was photoshopped!
None of this is really relevant to Russia's stated reasons for invasion and their exaggerations of Nazi influence, although I'm certain that they're pleasantly surprised with how often Nazi insignia keeps cropping up on Ukrainian soldiers in these photo-ops. Trying to sweep away the acceptance of this ideology by Ukrainian forces is a great travesty. This kind of logic is why the USA is somehow hosting members of the Azov Battalion, despite the fact that they were designated as terrorists by multiple organizations across the entire world.
Common Dreams (which your link is an opinion article by the way, not an officially published research paper) didn't do any polling or research, they literally just took Opinion Research Business (ORB)'s poll and applied some additional math to stretch the numbers out. ORB's methods were an extreme outlier suggesting they were flawed. As I said before, the majority of sources I can find suggest the deaths are around 200,000. It's certainly possible that the number is in the millions, but the few sources that suggest that are in the minority, and or have questionable tactics for getting those numbers.
If the majority of sources say the toll is around 200k, and the extreme outliers have questionable or non-existent data collection, and yet still you post between 400-1 million dead (and are now linking to an opinion article stating 2.4 million) I think you are in fact picking the sources that tell you what you want. I'm not just picking general pro-US sources. The Iraq Body Count, which has even been counting deaths after the war's end, states 288k.
Again I'm not saying it's impossible that it could be higher. I certainly don't know. But based off the many sources that say the same thing, and a tiny handful of questionable outliers, I'm going with the reasonable answer that it's probably at or around 200k. Too many respectable sources has stated this so unless something OTHER than ORB thinks it's higher I'm going to take the reasonable answer. Everyone agrees the war was illegitimate, we don't need to pick the higher death numbers to prove it.
I haven't seen anything posted by reputable news sites or research that would suggest ANY serious Nazi collaboration in modern Ukraine, at least no worse than is found in the US far right (or any other nation's far right). It seems that any connection to Nazis has been greatly exaggerated by Russian state media. I've seen too many examples of proven photoshops or easily disproven lies to really take any of it too seriously. Stepan Bandera is certainly a form of national hero in modern Ukraine but not because he was sending Jews to the camps (he was definitely an anti-semite but he had no part in the Holocaust). Again, these were a people who had to pick from one violent dictator or another. Prior to WW2 Ukraine suffered greatly under Stalin, in particular the Holodomor genocide. Bandera and others collaborated with the Nazis because at that point it was clearly the lesser of two evils. They didn't pick the Nazis for ideological reasons, but because ten years prior their own government starved 3-5 million Ukrainians to death. Ukraine tried to gain independence after the start of Barbarossa but the Nazis crushed the revolt and sent Bandera to the death camps. He was released back to Ukraine when Germany was losing in the hopes his pro-independence fighters would harass advancing Soviet troops. Bandera later escaped to the West where his Ukranian partisans fought for independence until the KGB assassinated him in 1959. Today Bandera only has a 32% approval rating. There is some historical connection with the Nazis but not in a "there's too many Jews, Hitler is my best friend" way, but in a "fuck Stalin so hard, we love the guy who gave his life to fight him even if he was a little garbage" sort of way. Tl;dr yeah he collaborated with Nazis but not in the way everyone assumes. The Soviet Union was just so fucking terrible that it was the clear lesser of two evils.
As for a 3 pixel wide skull on a Ukrainian soldier's backpack who took a selfie with Zelensky, who gives a shit lol.
Last edited:
I'm going to assume that you decided to skim the article and not actually evaluate what is being said there. I apologize for not being more clear in the original post. The part in the Common Dreams article I'm referring to isn't its estimated death toll, it's The Lancet's 2006 study which put its death toll estimates at approximately 600000. This study was reviewed in 2015 and was found to have a consistent and robust design. The study authors have responded to criticism of their work. This is not some kind of quack propaganda piece. For clarification, the Common Dreams estimated death toll is not the total from the Iraq War, it's their estimated death toll from 2003 till the time of publication.
Is The Lancet's study absolute? No. Is it a separate and distinct study from the ORB one? Yes. Does it contribute a valid death toll? Yes. I cannot understand why you keep saying I'm "picking sources that say what you want". My previous post was clear that producing a study that gives a lower death toll is fine, because that is how these studies work. Implying that any death toll estimate above 300000 is an extreme outlier that has "questionable" or "non-existent" data collection (a claim which is completely undemonstrated in the case of The Lancet's study) is garbage, however.
The upshot of this is that the previous range I gave is completely valid. I don't want to derail this thread with this discussion any further.
I don't understand this part at all. Bandera's OUN-B participated in the massacres of Poles, Jews, and Russians. Poland would not stand for denial of this. I am pretty sure this is exactly the kind of "collaborating with Nazis" in the way that everyone assumes.
Obviously Zelensky himself, considering that he deleted the picture from Twitter. Fascist insignias cropping up everywhere is terrible optics. Does Ukraine really want to confirm Russia's exaggerated claims about Nazi influence?
The opinion article you linked takes a flawed study that counts 1+ million dead, mixes it with a 600k outlier, and arbitrarily mathematically determines that the death toll must have been 2.4 million. As I said before there have been dozens of other estimates and the majority range from 100-300k most of which around 200k. If you disregard all the other numbers and instead cling to the outlier it means yeah, you're biased. You previously stated the Iraq war deaths range from 400k to 1 million when actual numbers and good data suggest it's much lower. If you instead double down on a demonstrably false claim, instead linking to opinion articles that back that number up with bad data I think it just means you want one result.
Also for the record the Lancet survey came to an extreme outlier as well which has also been met with criticism by other similar random surveys. Doesn't mean it can't be right but once more, if you ignore the majority of surveys, research papers, and data that says one thing, and only pick the data that shows what you want, it means you're ignoring facts due to bias. Both the Lancet and ORB polls have criticism aimed at their methods and yet your article cites both of them to reach their 2.4 million number. Maybe, just maybe that suggests it's a bad source?
It means the Ukrainians were the victims of two multi-million dead genocides within ten years and for some of them one dictator was better than another. Fast forward 70 years and it isn't so hard to see why a Ukrainian could say that their grandfather fought these assholes, so now I will as well. The Soviets in WW2 were only slightly better than the Nazis from a Western perspective, to a Ukrainian who just went through the Holodomor it's reasonable to see why some would pick the Nazis. If anything Russia's aggression would stimulate some of that cultural history, but it's certainly in the minority similar to how some in the US fly the Confederate flag even when they might not directly support slavery.
Does that mean three generations later modern Ukraine is full of skinhead white supremacists? No, but there's probably some Nazi cultural remnants that are all too easy for propaganda to blow out of proportion.
Last edited:
i've been meaning to sit down and lay out some tighter responses but just have not had the time. here's something cursory in the meantime
This is a pretty flawed way of looking at war. I quickly looked up wikipedia's list of russian empire/soviet/russian wars post-1850, and the # of wars that werent "teaming up with militarily viable countries" or "think they're big enough to beat them instantly" was like... a grand total of 5. Miniscule sample size, and Russia won like half of them anyway. I would assume most British wars and French wars post-1850 were "teaming up with a militarily viable ally" or "planning to instantly beat a smaller foe" too.
I feel like you are talking past Always! here. Are you implying collaboration with the Nazis meant Ukranians like Bandera and the OUN had no choice but to massacre Jews and other minorities? Because that seems suspect. Nazi collaboration varied wildly in enthusiasm and degree; NDH Croatia was notorious even among collaborators for its brutal violence, Sweden attempted to appear neutral under pressure, and Finland collaborated actively but with clear friction, to the point where Jewish Finnish soldiers held services in earshot of Nazi soldiers. Internal protest pushed Bulgaria to partially protect its Jewish population, while the same wasn't true for Romania. I don't know the particular details of Ukraine's situation, but I assume the OUN lay somewhere along that continuum, and in my extremely limited understanding, it doesn't seem like they lay towards the Sweden or Finland side.
Last edited:
Ukrainian here (though been living in Spain since 2002), it's a good time to put some short reflection on some of the topics mentioned:
1. Holodomor is a thing (some deny it).
2. Holodomor was not intended to kill Ukrainins (or other nationalities), but more just classic incompetence by the Soviet authorities (both from Ukraine and Russia).
3. Russia still applied discrimination to minorities during Soviet times. It has always done that, in Russian Empire times too and it certainly does that too currently.
4. Bandera was a nazi collaborator and criminal, there is no way around that. Praising him currently is a mistake (though it doesn't automatically make a nazi everyone who does it).
5. Bandera would have never been historically relevant if A. Bolsheviks didn't invade and annex Ukraine 1920, at the time a free and sovereign country. B. Holodomor and discrimination to minorities didn't happen. And C. Nazi invasion of Soviet Union didn't happen.
6. Soviet Union still was the best version of Russia for most of the population. Better than the empire, much better than current Russia. Certainly the lesser evil between it and Third Reich.
7. Communism has good things and bad things. Capitalism has good things and bad things. Won't be listing them cause the post would be too long, but current Russia managed to pick the worst things of both systems.
8. Crimea is Ukraine. Crimea being given to Jruschov was not an historical mistake than Russian Empire annexing it in first place. The referendum was illegal, even though the result would have been similar if it was actually valid.
9. As a personal opinion, I think that Crimea should either be an independent country or given more autonomy and ruled by Crimean Tatars, the original population of the place. They were forcingly displaced by Stalin in order to make Crimea more ethnically Russia.
10. 2014 Euromaidan was not legal. However, president Yanukovich legitimazed it by ordering the police to shoot the protestors. Many of the atrocities commited in last 8 years were his fault.
11. There are nazis in Ukraine, just like in any other countries. However, they are not represented at the Supreme Rada (basically, the Parliament of Ukraine).
12. There is no language discrimination in Ukraine.
13. Being jew does not prevent you from being a nazi.
14. President Zelensky is not a nazi. Still, he tolerates nazis way too much and that is a mistake.
15. Not everyone holding nazi symbols is a nazi, many do it just from pure ignorance.
16. Before the war, I thought NATO was a non needed organism and applying to join it is a mistake. Now I think it's the lesser evil, Putin has been a blessing for the organization.
17. Despite being a mistake, a country should not be threatened for joining the NATO.
18. NATO, USA and Ukraine have part of the fault for the war starting. Still, the main culprit is the Putin regime and there is no way around that.
19. Ukraine has been bombing Dombass for 8 years and committing crimes against civilians. However, most casualties were not actually civilians but combatants of the illegal republics, who too kidnapped, bombed and murdered civilian population in the same period of time.
20. The ilegallisation of political parties made by Zelensky is a big mistake, except those with actual ties to Russia.
21. Of course, illegalisation of political parties, NATO, Euromaidan, etc. are not the main reason Russia started the war. Pure classic imperialism is.
22. Pro-Russia media being silenced by the West is a mistake. Letting them expose themselves would have done way more damage to Russia.
23. People escaping from Russian terrorist regime should be given asylum, even though some of them end up being propagandists. It still means less workforce for Russia and less soldiers.
24. Ukraine should not negotiate with Russia until at least there is no Russian army in territories not already occupied by Russia before 24/02/2022.
25. West should continue supporting Ukraine with humanitarian aid and weapons, and with more sanctions to Russia. Even though the regime looks strong, it only really is in Moscow. Russia will collapse before West despite their oil and gas chantage.
26. Nuclear weapons should not exist, though this is pretty unrealistic wish.
27. I doubt Russia will use Nuclear weapons even if they lose, it would mean the end of them ( and maybe of the world too, though).
28. Hopefully the war ends soon, but I doubt it.
1. Holodomor is a thing (some deny it).
2. Holodomor was not intended to kill Ukrainins (or other nationalities), but more just classic incompetence by the Soviet authorities (both from Ukraine and Russia).
3. Russia still applied discrimination to minorities during Soviet times. It has always done that, in Russian Empire times too and it certainly does that too currently.
4. Bandera was a nazi collaborator and criminal, there is no way around that. Praising him currently is a mistake (though it doesn't automatically make a nazi everyone who does it).
5. Bandera would have never been historically relevant if A. Bolsheviks didn't invade and annex Ukraine 1920, at the time a free and sovereign country. B. Holodomor and discrimination to minorities didn't happen. And C. Nazi invasion of Soviet Union didn't happen.
6. Soviet Union still was the best version of Russia for most of the population. Better than the empire, much better than current Russia. Certainly the lesser evil between it and Third Reich.
7. Communism has good things and bad things. Capitalism has good things and bad things. Won't be listing them cause the post would be too long, but current Russia managed to pick the worst things of both systems.
8. Crimea is Ukraine. Crimea being given to Jruschov was not an historical mistake than Russian Empire annexing it in first place. The referendum was illegal, even though the result would have been similar if it was actually valid.
9. As a personal opinion, I think that Crimea should either be an independent country or given more autonomy and ruled by Crimean Tatars, the original population of the place. They were forcingly displaced by Stalin in order to make Crimea more ethnically Russia.
10. 2014 Euromaidan was not legal. However, president Yanukovich legitimazed it by ordering the police to shoot the protestors. Many of the atrocities commited in last 8 years were his fault.
11. There are nazis in Ukraine, just like in any other countries. However, they are not represented at the Supreme Rada (basically, the Parliament of Ukraine).
12. There is no language discrimination in Ukraine.
13. Being jew does not prevent you from being a nazi.
14. President Zelensky is not a nazi. Still, he tolerates nazis way too much and that is a mistake.
15. Not everyone holding nazi symbols is a nazi, many do it just from pure ignorance.
16. Before the war, I thought NATO was a non needed organism and applying to join it is a mistake. Now I think it's the lesser evil, Putin has been a blessing for the organization.
17. Despite being a mistake, a country should not be threatened for joining the NATO.
18. NATO, USA and Ukraine have part of the fault for the war starting. Still, the main culprit is the Putin regime and there is no way around that.
19. Ukraine has been bombing Dombass for 8 years and committing crimes against civilians. However, most casualties were not actually civilians but combatants of the illegal republics, who too kidnapped, bombed and murdered civilian population in the same period of time.
20. The ilegallisation of political parties made by Zelensky is a big mistake, except those with actual ties to Russia.
21. Of course, illegalisation of political parties, NATO, Euromaidan, etc. are not the main reason Russia started the war. Pure classic imperialism is.
22. Pro-Russia media being silenced by the West is a mistake. Letting them expose themselves would have done way more damage to Russia.
23. People escaping from Russian terrorist regime should be given asylum, even though some of them end up being propagandists. It still means less workforce for Russia and less soldiers.
24. Ukraine should not negotiate with Russia until at least there is no Russian army in territories not already occupied by Russia before 24/02/2022.
25. West should continue supporting Ukraine with humanitarian aid and weapons, and with more sanctions to Russia. Even though the regime looks strong, it only really is in Moscow. Russia will collapse before West despite their oil and gas chantage.
26. Nuclear weapons should not exist, though this is pretty unrealistic wish.
27. I doubt Russia will use Nuclear weapons even if they lose, it would mean the end of them ( and maybe of the world too, though).
28. Hopefully the war ends soon, but I doubt it.
What Russia has over almost every other country in the world is its nukes and if the West keeps poking Putin then I wouldn't underestimate his ability to actually use them. I think the west should leverage all the billions of dollars worth aid to get Ukraine to be open to compromising on some key issues to try to fizzle out the conflict.
Bruh. What exactly do you think Ukraine should compromise on? Only genociding half their citizens? Only annexing half their territory?
Well for starters for Ukraine to never join NATO and recognize autonomy for the Donbas Region. Ukraine had that deal lined up months ago but decided to turn it down. They had a out, but they didn't take it so it's on them. I am not defending Russia but I don't have any sympathy for the Ukrainians anymore and this conflict could very easily blow up to affect more of the world
So compromise means "only annex a major part of their territory", got it. They weren't joining NATO in the first place when Russia invaded. But they sure as fuck are going to now, so Russia doesn't invade them again. It's abundantly clear that NATO membership is necessary for them to defend themselves from a genocidal imperialist empire.
In case you don't understand: if they give up the whole Donbas region today (which is a terrible idea for endless reasons and also it would destroy a major sector of Ukraine's economy) to sue for peace, literally nothing is stopping Russia from just invading again in a year when they have their army back on their feet. There is no treaty you can sign to avoid this outcome. Russia already has shown, in this exact war, that they do not give a shit about previously signed treaties!
Last edited:
Hey, remember when we spent 7 years appeasing the Axis powers in the 1930s to avoid a world war? Yeah, how'd that work out again? Turns out just giving genocidal imperialists what they want isn't an effective way of stopping them.
I'm confused on people stating to being anti-war/wanting the war to end faster, while also being pro-ukraine escalation and sending arms to it. You can't really be both: you're just pro-war on the side you want to win 
being anti-war means you'll be against Ukranian military support and Russia's sanctions just as much as you are against Russia's attacks and threats.
Sure, you can dream up on Ukraine's epic destruction of Russia or whatever the libs are salivating at rn, but the longer this goes, the worse it'll be for Ukraine: it may win against Russia, but no real progress will be made, it'l just become a debt ridden country trapped in a frozen war, an asset to western ego and the shadows of the red scare (over a capitalist Russia no less lol?) There's a reason the west keeps instigating and shut down peace talks before. I don't know how many more Ukranians and Russians have to be thrown to this meatgrinder for people to realize that.
All wars end on papers being signed, but I fear the tipping point where the west can just sign it for them, genuinely.
Also I think if anyone goes "oh so youre pro russia" im going to die, so have my disclaimer of I don't support Russia either here before anyone tries something funny. This is a war purely made of capitalist ego from all involved.
being anti-war means you'll be against Ukranian military support and Russia's sanctions just as much as you are against Russia's attacks and threats.Sure, you can dream up on Ukraine's epic destruction of Russia or whatever the libs are salivating at rn, but the longer this goes, the worse it'll be for Ukraine: it may win against Russia, but no real progress will be made, it'l just become a debt ridden country trapped in a frozen war, an asset to western ego and the shadows of the red scare (over a capitalist Russia no less lol?) There's a reason the west keeps instigating and shut down peace talks before. I don't know how many more Ukranians and Russians have to be thrown to this meatgrinder for people to realize that.
All wars end on papers being signed, but I fear the tipping point where the west can just sign it for them, genuinely.
Also I think if anyone goes "oh so youre pro russia" im going to die, so have my disclaimer of I don't support Russia either here before anyone tries something funny. This is a war purely made of capitalist ego from all involved.
Um, exactly what peace talks have the west been "instigating and shut[t]ing down"?
Ukraine has always had a pretty clear condition for peace talks: the Russians out of their country! Russia has shown zero willingness to do this! You say that the west have been both instigating and shutting down peace talks. Uh, when? What he heck are you talking about?
Ukraine has always had a pretty clear condition for peace talks: the Russians out of their country! Russia has shown zero willingness to do this! You say that the west have been both instigating and shutting down peace talks. Uh, when? What he heck are you talking about?
Ah yes, the capitalist ego of *checks notes* Ukraine being actively genocided.
Not only are you arguing for appeasement, but you can even say that you're defending Russia, a fact that becomes pretty obvious when you insist that you have no sympathy for the people facing a literal war of elimination.
Ukraine has negotiated peace with Russia several times before the secondary invasion. Russia has broken those agreements EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. They violated Budapest and Minsk. They violated the grain deal immediately. Outside of Ukraine, they violated several deals to not bomb Syrian civilians. The only thing you can trust Russians to do on the world stage is to break their promises and obligations. It's actually a wonder that the Americans still bother including them in anything outside space (and even then, space isn't as sacred to the Russians as it used to be).
The only political parties that were banned had been over their (verifiable) ties to Russia. And that wasn't even all of them, the Communist Party for instance wasn't banned until this summer (by a court) when in reality it should have been banned with Borotba and other far-right allies. It's also a mistake to simply treat the invasion as a continuation of Soviet politics when in reality Soviet policy on Ukraine was a continuation of that of the Russian Empire.
I'm confused on people stating to being anti-war/wanting the war to end faster, while also being pro-ukraine escalation and sending arms to it. You can't really be both: you're just pro-war on the side you want to win
Sure, you can dream up on Ukraine's epic destruction of Russia or whatever the libs are salivating at rn, but the longer this goes, the worse it'll be for Ukraine: it may win against Russia, but no real progress will be made, it'l just become a debt ridden country trapped in a frozen war, an asset to western ego and the shadows of the red scare (over a capitalist Russia no less lol?) There's a reason the west keeps instigating and shut down peace talks before. I don't know how many more Ukranians and Russians have to be thrown to this meatgrinder for people to realize that.
All wars end on papers being signed, but I fear the tipping point where the west can just sign it for them, genuinely.
Also I think if anyone goes "oh so youre pro russia" im going to die, so have my disclaimer of I don't support Russia either here before anyone tries something funny. This is a war purely made of capitalist ego from all involved.
It takes a real lack of integrity to say this sort of thing while pretending to not be supportive of Russian military goals and uncritically spouting off Russian propaganda. I could take anything you've said and easily apply it to other imperialist conflicts and it'd read as some of the most blatant apologia for those wars. At least with pro-Russian Nazis they're not pretending to do anything but support Russian war crimes and the Russian goal of exterminating Ukrainians.
"I'm confused on people stating to being anti-war/wanting the war to end faster, while also being pro-French escalation and sending arms to it. You can't really be both you're just pro-war on the side you want to win
being anti-war means you'll be against French military support and Nazi Germany's sanctions just as much as you are against Nazi Germany's attacks and threats.""I'm confused on people stating to being anti-war/wanting the war to end faster, while also being pro-Iraqi escalation and sending arms to it. You can't really be both: you're just pro-war on the side you want to win
being anti-war means you'll be against Iraqi military support and America's sanctions just as much as you are against America's attacks and threats."
Last edited by a moderator:
Can we all just agree we don't want Russia absorbing Ukraine into itself?
In other news, the US is sending Bradleys and Abrams, and Germany is sending Leopards. The entire nation of Poland collectively became aroused over these developments. We're talking closed Pornhub and opened AP news level of arousal. Given Poland's history this is understandable.
Through this whole war the west has been intervening with both hands behind their backs. The goal was for Ukraine to not lose, but not to send so much aid to Ukraine that Russia becomes insecure enough to do something atomically stupid. But the plucky Ukrainians have held their own and regardless of my previous comments it seems a WW1 style meat grinder is not in anyone's interest as "time" risks Russia fixing their mistakes and becoming just a little less "fucking stupid", as the Ukrainians once famously said.
Abrams are hard to maintain (and use). The US is fucking rich, but Ukraine is cartoonishly not. Lucky for anyone not Russia, the US is more than happy to train, equip, fuel etc the Abrams for the sole purpose of "fuck Russia". We're looking at these tanks being introduced some time in the Spring but at the current rate we're going the battle lines are unlikely to chance much until then. In the long run if the West WANTS to win they can. A major training program involving Abrams (which the US has too many, and produces more each year because it's cheaper than shutting down factories) and mass donations of lighter IFVs like the Bradley could very well push Russia out of Ukraine. The question is how long will support continue but even the most pessimistic views lead to an optimistic future for Ukraine.
In other news Democrats and Republicans generally agree on being pro-Ukraine. Pretty sure this hasn't happened on anything else since 9/11. Not Libertarians though, those guys are dumpster level idiots. Imagine looking at 1991's Somalian government and thinking "this is nice".
Through this whole war the west has been intervening with both hands behind their backs. The goal was for Ukraine to not lose, but not to send so much aid to Ukraine that Russia becomes insecure enough to do something atomically stupid. But the plucky Ukrainians have held their own and regardless of my previous comments it seems a WW1 style meat grinder is not in anyone's interest as "time" risks Russia fixing their mistakes and becoming just a little less "fucking stupid", as the Ukrainians once famously said.
Abrams are hard to maintain (and use). The US is fucking rich, but Ukraine is cartoonishly not. Lucky for anyone not Russia, the US is more than happy to train, equip, fuel etc the Abrams for the sole purpose of "fuck Russia". We're looking at these tanks being introduced some time in the Spring but at the current rate we're going the battle lines are unlikely to chance much until then. In the long run if the West WANTS to win they can. A major training program involving Abrams (which the US has too many, and produces more each year because it's cheaper than shutting down factories) and mass donations of lighter IFVs like the Bradley could very well push Russia out of Ukraine. The question is how long will support continue but even the most pessimistic views lead to an optimistic future for Ukraine.
In other news Democrats and Republicans generally agree on being pro-Ukraine. Pretty sure this hasn't happened on anything else since 9/11. Not Libertarians though, those guys are dumpster level idiots. Imagine looking at 1991's Somalian government and thinking "this is nice".