What kind of mediation would work? Doesn’t the Russian government just want to take control of Ukraine? If it’s “just” demilitarized (not puppet leader put in place) then the pro Russian separatists governments could seize power on the whole country.
I would get that the Russian speakers region could need independence if the central government discriminates them. But Russia doesn’t need to invade the whole country for this.
Russian government has never said they want to take control of Ukraine. What they want is Ukraine to be a neutral country that doesn’t join NATO. They’ve literally been asking for that for the past 8 years.
deleted by creator
Nothing says you’re a free country like having NATO overthrow your government in a coup.
Unlike Russia trying to kill Zelensky in an attack?
[citation needed]
No, their sovereignty was taken away by USA in 2014 Maidan coup d’etat.
deleted by creator
Go check Mearsheimer’s talk. Also, “Western liberal democracy” is an utter failure and has not particularly worked well anywhere yet.
deleted by creator
You are intentionally immoral and dishonest. Probably if your country gets invaded and colonised for a couple centuries, that will start putting some sense into Westerners like you. Mine was, and now another has indirect proxy colonisation.
Please go watch John Mearsheimer’s talk that after this conflict has gone from 4M to 17M views. It will reverse a lot of brainrot the media has fed to you and everyone around you.
I’m sure you could summarize the key points that address what tuxayo is saying rather then telling him “do your research, bro”
Read again.
maybe Putin should stop “intensifying” the situation by pulling out…
Russia should’ve never invaded Ukraine in the first place. However, given that happened and Russia isn’t likely to be pulling out the question becomes who exactly benefits from prolonging this conflict?
Ukraine placated putin after he invaded donbass, then they placated him after he invaded crimea. what makes you think that placating putin now will have any positive effects?
The regime that the west put in power after 2014 created a war in Donbas, not sure how you managed to attribute this to Putin. Meanwhile, Crimea voted to join Russia in a referendum because it’s populated by Russians. Again, I don’t understand why people keep twisting basic facts of the situation to try and paint a narrative that’s completely at odds with reality. Do you realize that Crimea was part of Russia until Khrushchev gifted it to Ukraine in the 70s. You seriously trying to claim that these people wanted to live in a country that outlawed the use of Russian language?
Crimea voted to join Russia in a referendum because it’s populated by Russians.
This is a lie. The so called “referendum” happened after Russia invaded.
Crimea was part of Russia
Everything was a part of something else in the past; this is irrelevant.
My question is: “when in the past has placating putin actually worked?”
This is a lie. The so called “referendum” happened after Russia invaded.
Stop trying to rewrite history. Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea because the legitimate government of Ukraine had a deal with Russia to provide them with bases.
Everything was a part of something else in the past; this is irrelevant.
What’s relevant is that the people of Crimea, who are Russian did not want to live under a regime that outlawed Russian language. Apparently this is something that you’re having trouble wrapping your head around.
My question is: “when in the past has placating putin actually worked?”
My question is: when has the west ever engaged with Russia in good faith. Point me to a single example.
How about a thought experiment. There are protests going on in Moscow, so what if Ukraine sends a “peacekeeping” mission to Moscow and two days after they capture the city there is a referendum for Moscow to become a part of Ukraine. Would you say this was a legitimate referendum, or an obviously hostile takeover?
Crimea used to be a part of the Ottoman empire, and there is someone who speaks turkish over there, so clearly it belongs to turkey…
My question is: when has the west ever engaged with Russia in good faith. Point me to a single example.
There are tons of examples actually… how about the ISS? That’s been orbiting for over 20 years, what has the US done in bad faith up there?
your turn now, when has placating putin worked?
How about a thought experiment. There are protests going on in Moscow, so what if Ukraine sends a “peacekeeping” mission to Moscow and two days after they capture the city there is a referendum for Moscow to become a part of Ukraine.
Wow that’s a fascinating thought experiment. Fortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with Crimea. Maybe read up on the subject before talking about it?
By the way, you still haven’t answered my question of why Russian people living in Crimea would want to be part of Ukraine that bans the use of Russian language. I’m really curious to see the mental gymnastics you’re going to use to explain that.
There are tons of examples actually… how about the ISS? That’s been orbiting for over 20 years, what has the US done in bad faith up there?
How is ISS an example of appeasing Putin, do enlighten me. This is the most deranged thing you’ve said here so far.
Here’s one: the Allies didn’t invade Russia after they defeated Hitler. Even though Patton was ready to go. Even though Churchill said we took out the wrong pig. How many Russians would have survived, if they’d just dealt with Stalin then and there?
Here’s one
I love how you manage to expose yourself to be ever more illiterate with every comment you make. First, USSR was one of the allies you dumb ignorant fuck. Second, vast majority of people in Europe supported USSR after the war. Third, the west was in no position to invade USSR that just built up a huge war machine during the war.
All that said, we were talking about Putin. But I guess being the utter idiot that you are, you probably think Putin was in charge of USSR in WW2. You are such an absolute 🤡.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Quite obviously not going to happen at this point. The only question at this point is how long the people of Ukraine are going to be made to suffer, and the west appears to determined to ensure that there is a maximum amount of suffering by blocking any meaningful negotiations and egging Ukraine on to keep fighting.
Ah yes, because it’s the west’s fault for invading Ukraine and the west is in control of the Russian military so they could pull out anytime. Of course Ukraine clearly doesn’t speak for itself as well and It’s not like Zelensky hasn’t appealed to Russia to stop?
It’s all so clear.
While nothing justified Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Thanks for the resources.
I fail to understand the actual treat to Russia from NATO. Because even if all bordering countries would join NATO. There is no way Russia will ever get attacked. It’s has the 1st or 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. There is no way a neighbor would attack Russia. A neighbor is even more easy to bomb than the USA. Even with much less nuclear power, the level of deterrence would be well enough to fear nothing from a military standpoint.
So a preventive war for this makes no sense. The Russian government can still claim otherwise to have an excuse to start this war.
Even if Ukraine would have been more successfully manipulated by the western governments than the Russian one. A preventive war still makes no sense. It’s not like the Russian government care for the Ukrainian people having a right of self-determination and would want to help them do so.
The only things that matters in the end is that Russia sees NATO as a threat, and NATO has done absolutely nothing to change that perception. Simply repeating that NATO isn’t a threat while continuously expanding it towards the Russian border and attacking countries for past 30 years isn’t exactly helping make the case that it’s a benign entity.
The irony with Russia’s actions here is they may well backfire. Countries that were previously debating membership may finally decide that any downside of NATO membership is nothing compared to the threat of being the next country that Russia invades. Russia already has invaded two of its neighbors and holds the loyalties of Belarus under a dictator. Russia has openly threatened Finland and Sweden. The invasion of Ukraine has caused support for membership to surge in both of those countries.
Countries are joining NATO because they fear Russia. If Russia didn’t want countries joining NATO, maybe they shouldn’t threaten their neighbors? It’s not exactly making the case that it’s a benign entity.
I don’t think you understand what’s going to happen to western economies in the coming months. As energy prices shoot through the roof that means that costs for everything will as well. All the necessities, food, transport, are going to become unaffordable for the vast majority of the people. I wonder what will happen then…
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Options-Traders-Are-Betting-On-300-Oil.html
Pretty much the breakdown to your argument is this (as mostly cited from your sources).
- West wants to incorporate Ukraine as part of the west. This challenges Russia’s influence and leadership and therefore to paraphrase the video: “Russia doesn’t want that to happen and will do everything it can to stop that”
And the west is doing that by trying to get Ukraine into NATO and into the EU.
Which… sure, you can infer that the west is strictly doing this for exploitative reasons (the same argument applies with Russia). However have you considered that Ukraine may want to be part of the west?
It’s also kinda bullshit to deny someone’s participation in an organisation like the EU just because they are neighbour of Russia. Some of the above points in your comment can be reduce to: “Don’t include Ukraine or any neighbours of Russia into EU because that will make Russia mad”. However I get why the authors are making these recommendations because it is coming from the angle of US security first and foremost.
What you have also failed to grasp here is how the word fault fits in the lecture. Their point here is to explain that “the west could have done better here” rather than “The west triggered this” because he leverages a lot of blame of particular incidents (violent and undemocratic actions) with Russia but asks us to reflect and consider how we could have handled it differently.
Funnily enough the video appears to have once again, shown the timeline of events which opposes your view. I don’t know how you keep doing this where you constantly quote sources which seem to defeat your own viewpoint and arguments made in the past and now.
With the first quote above and the following quote: “Russia has gone through great lengths to make sure that those pro-russian forces in eastern Ukraine are capable of maintaining a certain amount of independence” when talking the separatists.
This captures the volatility of the situation with Russia and how much they want control over neighboring countries, regardless if that country wants their influence or not. Pretty much I think you have failed to see that… the authors you have quoted here are treating Russia as volatile and expansionist nation. Once again, this is mixed in with their their goal to maintain US security.
The problem with the George Kennan’s argument is that people were being threatened in Europe back in 91-98 where Russia was actively involved in conflicts, it’s revisionist to say “No one was threatening anyone else” and its also a little absurd coming from someone whose job was to ‘contain’ the soviet union and to reduce their influence. There is more at play with Russia than what Kennan infers at the time of his note. Some contributing factors here: You have the hyper-capitalist turn with Yeltsin at the helm, division of territories, loss of power and rise of oligarchs in the new capitalist system.
The authors general consensus is best reduced to: “Russia doesn’t want the west involved in any matters relating to its neighbours”. However, that’s not a decision that Russia gets to make (and the USA shouldn’t get to make that decision either). The authors make it clear that “Russia will get violent if you do get involved”, once again… not okay for Russia to do and it hypocritical to question involvement when they also get involved.
Personally the Ivan Katchanovski article was the biggest red flag that you seem to actively seek out pro-Russian sources to support your world view. It’s fine to do that but balance it out.
Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
No, you are trying to make it seem like that is the case. The tensions were there however the level of escalation that Russia took was unacceptable as with most of their actions prior to this.
Which… sure, you can infer that the west is strictly doing this for exploitative reasons (the same argument applies with Russia). However have you considered that Ukraine may want to be part of the west?
Have you considered that Ukraine is not a homogeneous blob that you’re making out to be and has had a civil war over this issue for the past 8 years?
Furthermore, have you considered that the west has been interfering and manipulating Ukrainian politics which culminated in a coup against the democratically elected government in 2014?
What you have also failed to grasp here is how the word fault fits in the lecture.
What you appear to grasp that the sort of posturing you’re engaged in doesn’t actually achieve any positive results. The reality is that either the west tries to find way to work with Russia constructively or we get closer to a nuclear holocaust. If you don’t understand why that should be avoided at all costs, I really don’t know what else to tell you.
No, you are trying to make it seem like that is the case. The tensions were there however the level of escalation that Russia took was unacceptable as with most of their actions prior to this.
You’ve literally engaged in doing this in your comment. What is or isn’t acceptable in international politics comes down to what countries can get away with doing. That’s the reality we live in. Russia feels that it’s strong enough to challenge the west and they’re doing it. Wars happens when both sides feel that they have a good chance of winning. Once again, if you don’t understand the danger to humanity from a conflict between Russia and the west then there’s no point having any further discussion.
Furthermore, have you considered that the west has been interfering and manipulating Ukrainian politics which culminated in a coup against the democratically elected government in 2014?
How much has that weighted and how much the pre-2014 government was legitimate. I’m open to the possibility that yes, the country governance could have been stolen from the people by the west. But also it’s totally makes sense to have a wide willingness to join the EU for economic reasons. And to have a willingness to join NATO after the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Both would be completely legitimate.
The Russian government has been trying to manipulate Ukraine very strongly also so it’s difficult to tell if the governments wanting join the west was illegitimate.
Russia wasn’t the one that ran a coup in Ukraine, and they were perfectly fine with Ukraine having a neutral government that worked with both the west and Russia.
Have you considered that Ukraine is not a homogeneous blob that you’re making out to be and has had a civil war over this issue for the past 8 years?
Yes I can very clearly see why this situation is a quagmire. However, financing and militarising an ethnic minority of a country on your border makes it incredibly evident you are happy to create an insurgency in that country. To also utilise your troops in that said country, to seize that their land is an act of war (ie Crimea).
- There is evidence prior to 2014 that majority wanted to be part of the EU.
- There is evidence now, even in territories previously against being part of the EU that they are supportive of being part of the EU.
To paraphrase the video you linked, it’s Russia coming in and wanting to wreck the country.
Furthermore, have you considered that the west has been interfering and manipulating Ukrainian politics which culminated in a coup against the democratically elected government in 2014?
Sure! I do agree that there is obviously some backing by the US and EU during EuroMaidan and Orange Revolution. These are typical goals of US foreign policy, however you have to enlighten me outside of Katchanovski’s articles that EuroMaidan was all completely orchestrated by the US/EU, Berkut didn’t fire on protestors, Yanukovych isn’t corrupt and there is no evidence of election meddling
What is or isn’t acceptable in international politics comes down to what countries can get away with doing. That’s the reality we live in.
Sure, we will tell everyone participating in this conversation to turn of their sense of morality. You can kind of fuck off with this if this is your rationale when engaging with people upset about the situation. It’s a failure to empathise and to adequately educate on your behalf.
I think people can comprehend that countries do bastard things, doesn’t mean they have to approve of it or feel indifferent because “That’s just geopol lol!”.
Russia feels that it’s strong enough to challenge the west and they’re doing it. Once again, if you don’t understand the danger to humanity from a conflict between Russia and the west then there’s no point having any further discussion.
What is this point really? People understand the danger here and the country presenting the threat upon the world here. De-escalation has been an objective here but it’s also a case where a country shouldn’t let their sovereignty be violated because of threats. It’s just appeasing Russia then and letting them take what they want.
The reality is that either the west tries to find way to work with Russia constructively or we get closer to a nuclear holocaust. If you don’t understand why that should be avoided at all costs, I really don’t know what else to tell you.
I get a sense that you are blaming the west for Russia acting aggressive. I don’t doubt that they have acted against Russia’s interest and vice-versa but to warrant the use of nuclear weapons is an escalation which is completely irrational. Obviously the west is trying to avoid a situation where Russia will respond with nuclear weapons.
Yes I can very clearly see why this situation is a quagmire. However, financing and militarising an ethnic minority of a country on your border makes it incredibly evident you are happy to create an insurgency in that country.
The only ethnic minority is the western Ukraine, which used to be known as Galicia. These are the nationalists the west put in charge.
To also utilise your troops in that said country, to seize that their land is an act of war (ie Crimea).
Fun fact, the troops were already in Crimea because the legitimate government had a deal with Russia to have them stationed there. When the government was overthrown, Crimea voted to join Russia in a referendum because Crimea is populated by Russians and was part of Russia until the 70s when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine.
however you have to enlighten me outside of Katchanovski’s articles that EuroMaidan was all completely orchestrated by the US/EU, Berkut didn’t fire on protestors, Yanukovych isn’t corrupt and there is no evidence of election meddling
Here are some sources for you
- https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtOx6dW_0vU&t=58s
- https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/
- https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/ukraine-russia-nato-crisis-liberal-illusions/
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299383810_The_Separatist_War_in_Donbas_A_Violent_Break-up_of_Ukraine
- https://www.internationalmagz.com/articles/conversation-with-dmitri-kovalevich
The fact that the west played a big role in orchestrating EuroMaidan is well documented and it’s frankly dishonest to continue trying to dismiss that.
Sure, we will tell everyone participating in this conversation to turn of their sense of morality.
If westerners had any sense of morality than they’d equally care about a literal genocide NATO is participating in Yemen right now, what NATO is doing in Syria and Somolia, and what Israel i doing in Palestine. Given that you lot have been silent on all these horrors that are far worse than what’s happening in Ukraine, you expose yourselves as being utterly immoral. The fact that it’s only Ukraine that westerners care about clearly shows that it’s never been about human rights or morals.
I think people can comprehend that countries do bastard things, doesn’t mean they have to approve of it or feel indifferent because “That’s just geopol lol!”.
Nice straw man there bud. What I actually said was that the west should be trying to figure out how to work with Russia constructively by recognizing their concerns and try to avoid wars. Instead, you chose to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to fight a proxy war with Russia while bloviating about morals. It’s frankly sickening to watch.
What is this point really? People understand the danger here and the country presenting the threat upon the world here. De-escalation has been an objective here but it’s also a case where a country shouldn’t let their sovereignty be violated because of threats. It’s just appeasing Russia then and letting them take what they want.
De-escalation absolutely has not been an objective here from the west. Literally everything the west has done since 2014 escalated the conflict until it turned into an open war, and the west continues to escalate today.
I get a sense that you are blaming the west for Russia acting aggressive.
Moralizing is what you’re doing. I’m engaging with reality and saying that unless the two sides start finding ways to understand each others concerns then things will continue to escalate and we will end up with a nuclear holocaust in the end. I highly recommend reading up on all the times we almost had a nuclear war completely unintentionally during the Cold War.
Spamming ofRepeat ofyour previous comment :
https://lemmy.ml/post/184804/comment/126044
Edit : Now i can cut and paste when i answer questions …i will try to avoid it to improve user’s experienceIf I have to address the same argument repeatedly then why wouldn’t I use the comment I’ve already written? Not sure why you think that’s some kind of a gotcha.
address the same argument
Because of this context, i believe you are right, it’s not complete spam.
But then, would you care putting huge comments in collapsing spoilers ?I suppose
