No, it does not mean that. If Russia achieves its goals then it acquires millions of new citizens, a lot of the world’s most fertile land, a very strategically valuable port (that it was leasing until recently), and the water supply for that port. These would all make Russia significantly more powerful.
Well you’re basically spelling it out - the objective is to fuck Russia. I don’t really have anything against that except: 1. It costs the lives of many Ukrainian and Russian people and 2. I prefer at least some balance of power instead of letting the US run unopposed and roughshod over the world
The objective is only “fuck Russia” if by “fuck Russia” you mean “prevent Russia from violently stealing a bunch of stuff from another country”. If that’s what you mean, then yes, the objective is fuck Russia. If that’s what “fuck Russia” means, Russia deserves to be fucked and brought it upon itself.
It costs the lives of many Ukrainian and Russian people
NATO has no leverage to make Ukraine keep fighting. If Ukraine decides it would rather capitulate, what is NATO going to do about it? The thing that is costing Ukrainian and Russian lives is Russia’s attempted land grab. The deaths stop immediately if Russia just goes home.
I prefer at least some balance of power
We already have China. Russia can’t play in the same league as America, it’s not even close. The EU and China are pretty much the only entities that currently can. I could see India getting there reasonably soon.
We’re gonna need some evidence that the first one was a NATO coup for that to be persuasive. Because frankly it is not that weird at all to me that a president suddenly and unilaterally making an enormous and unpopular shift in policy sparked large protests and opposition. Never mind that Ukrainians completely destroyed Yanukovych’s party at the election only months afterwards. Never mind that Yanukovych fucking fled the country. Was Ukraine meant to just patiently wait for him to come back after he abandoned his post?
And yes, I have read the transcript of the Nuland-Pyatt call. It is not persuasive towards your claim of a NATO-backed coup. It shows that America wanted to influence who came to power afterwards, but it’s very clearly reactive and not proactive. And I’m sorry, but negotiating with leaders of a movement to try to persuade them who they should work with is just not a coup.
Well you’re basically spelling it out - the objective is to fuck Russia. I don’t really have anything against that except: 1. It costs the lives of many Ukrainian and Russian people and 2. I prefer at least some balance of power instead of letting the US run unopposed and roughshod over the world
The objective is only “fuck Russia” if by “fuck Russia” you mean “prevent Russia from violently stealing a bunch of stuff from another country”. If that’s what you mean, then yes, the objective is fuck Russia. If that’s what “fuck Russia” means, Russia deserves to be fucked and brought it upon itself.
NATO has no leverage to make Ukraine keep fighting. If Ukraine decides it would rather capitulate, what is NATO going to do about it? The thing that is costing Ukrainian and Russian lives is Russia’s attempted land grab. The deaths stop immediately if Russia just goes home.
We already have China. Russia can’t play in the same league as America, it’s not even close. The EU and China are pretty much the only entities that currently can. I could see India getting there reasonably soon.
Removed by mod
We’re gonna need some evidence that the first one was a NATO coup for that to be persuasive. Because frankly it is not that weird at all to me that a president suddenly and unilaterally making an enormous and unpopular shift in policy sparked large protests and opposition. Never mind that Ukrainians completely destroyed Yanukovych’s party at the election only months afterwards. Never mind that Yanukovych fucking fled the country. Was Ukraine meant to just patiently wait for him to come back after he abandoned his post?
And yes, I have read the transcript of the Nuland-Pyatt call. It is not persuasive towards your claim of a NATO-backed coup. It shows that America wanted to influence who came to power afterwards, but it’s very clearly reactive and not proactive. And I’m sorry, but negotiating with leaders of a movement to try to persuade them who they should work with is just not a coup.