Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

neverdie said:
The direct reason for the war was simple: North Korea moved across the border... US invaded Vietnam... Franco woke up one day and decided to kill socialists.

I forgot how easy war is and why the history books are only two pages long. Cheers.


"a Russian retreat is a more likely scenario than an Ukranian surrender."

I've been looking at the map of movements today. Barring tiny pieces here and there, almost no change in warzone configuration, frontline, in a year. Move forward, move back. It's entrenched now that the only means of Russian retreat, substantial, will be negotatied settlement. Which I think will happen (within two years, or one, hopefully). Ukrainain surrender is not on the cards, Russian surrender also, not possible. Definition of stalemate.
Click to expand...

Yeah and a butterfly flapped it’s wing in the Jurassic era…
 
neverdie said:
The direct reason for the war was simple: North Korea moved across the border... US invaded Vietnam... Franco woke up one day and decided to kill socialists.

I forgot how easy war is and why the history books are only two pages long. Cheers.


"a Russian retreat is a more likely scenario than an Ukranian surrender."

I've been looking at the map of movements today. Barring tiny pieces here and there, almost no change in warzone configuration, frontline, in a year. Move forward, move back. It's entrenched now that the only means of Russian retreat, substantial, will be negotatied settlement. Which I think will happen (within two years, or one, hopefully). Ukrainain surrender is not on the cards, Russian surrender also, not possible. Definition of stalemate.
Click to expand...

I guess if you completely ignore the Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives this might be true, but those two things happened. Russia has made minimal gains (primarily around Bakhmut) while Ukraine has pushed the Russians back on two fronts.
 
neverdie said:
What do you think it was about, then? Control (Russian) of Ukraine by proxy is a given. But that implies NATO (the US checking Russia in Ukraine after Russia checked the US in Syria). If that doesn't factor into your analysis, whether Putin is Hitler and NATO are Gandhi (just rhetorical), then I don't see how people explain the war at all. We all know the US began to arm Ukraine roughly around the time of the Arab Spring when Russia, post-2008 through 2011. was starting to act against US interests in all sorts of places. Do people just leave that out of the analysis altogether? That's why it made/makes sense for the US to do precisely what it did (and why it didn't seem like a good idea for Russia to invade). I'm curious to see how people would approach an analysis of the war, maybe later, in detail (whatever their conclusion). Forget NATO is wrong, or Russia is evil, (we can just assume people from whatever "side" will assume such things anyway). Why did Russia invade? Why did the US arm Ukraine (many years prior to the Russian invasion)? And so on. Not looking to antagonize people but actually looking for a fairly comprehensive counter-argument to my own argument if anyone is willing (perhaps different thread?).

If Russia didn't invade Georgia, protect the Assad regime, and various other things, does the US bother with moving into Ukraine at all? I don't think so. Russia isn't mentioned as geopolitical foe to the US until 2007/8 when Putin starts doing various things contrary to US aims. Genuinely curious, and now is maybe not the right time, as to how people lay it all out.
Click to expand...
Big word salad but what's your point? Ukraine was shifting to the West, yes. Putin doesn't like that. Maybe he should ask himself why his neighbours don't like him.

I don't remember who made this point, I think it was Stephen Kotkin. He made the point that it's not a crime for countries to shift towards the West. It's not a crime for countries to apply to NATO. No one is being forced to apply for NATO membership. These countries want NATO membership for a reason.

We should be glad if countries want to shift towards the West. The whole "NATO vs Russia" argument takes away agency from countries who have no interest in being under Putin's thumb.
 
But it does make it a formidable fighting force because the level of accepted casualties in the Russian army is way higher than in any modern army in the world. That level is accepted universally — by the officer corps, by soldiers, by their relatives, and the society as a whole.

The only attempt by civil society to introduce accountability for the military was made during the First Chechen War when soldiers’ mothers formed the Soldiers Mothers’ Movement — but this initiative was swiftly crushed by the Defense Ministry many years ago.
Click to expand...

 
VorZakone said:
Big word salad but what's your point? Ukraine was shifting to the West, yes. Putin doesn't like that. Maybe he should ask himself why his neighbours don't like him.

I don't remember who made this point, I think it was Stephen Kotkin. He made the point that it's not a crime for countries to shift towards the West. It's not a crime for countries to apply to NATO. No one is being forced to apply for NATO membership. These countries want NATO membership for a reason.

We should be glad if countries want to shift towards the West. The whole "NATO vs Russia" argument takes away agency from countries who have no interest in being under Putin's thumb.
Click to expand...

The part in bold is what has to be hammered time and time again. No one forced anyone to enter NATO; all of those new members lobbied for memberships and managed to obtain UNANIMOUS consent from established member nations after several negotiations.

The Kremlin's useful idiots like Cornel West need to take a backseat when they don't understand the extent of the context. One fact still remains and will leave Kremlin supporters/apologists butthurt: the Kosovo War, the 2 Chechen wars, the invasion in South Ossetia and now the war in Ukraine have been catalysts for new NATO memberships over the last 24 years. Post-Soviet governments in Moscow were given countless opportunities to behave like a proper 21st century superpower, but they blew it.
 
frostbite said:
Russia cannot even cope with Ukraine! Why do you mention Americans fighting in Ukraine? It has nothing to do with anything.

The problem is that US and NATO are too slow in providing Ukraine with the weapons they need to win this war. They asked for F-16s one year and a half ago. Why did NATO need 1.5 years to start doing something about it? Why NATO could not start training Ukranian pilots in March 2022? That's the question.

Ukrainians never asked us to send them soldiers. They asked us to send them weapons. We said yes, but we are too slow to implement it. The slower we are the more Ukrainians will die, so ... we are indirectly responsible for some deaths of our allies.
Click to expand...

Mate, I was replying to a question concerning Ukraine joining NATO. The central effect of which would be US commitment to Article 5. I think you should have read back in the conversation further if I’m honest!
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

This bit here is key IMO
it does make it a formidable fighting force because the level of accepted casualties in the Russian army is way higher than in any modern army in the world. That level is accepted universally — by the officer corps, by soldiers, by their relatives, and the society as a whole. The only attempt by civil society to introduce accountability for the military was made during the First Chechen War when soldiers’ mothers formed the Soldiers Mothers’ Movement — but this initiative was swiftly crushed by the Defense Ministry many years ago.
Click to expand...
 
VorZakone said:
Big word salad but what's your point? Ukraine was shifting to the West, yes. Putin doesn't like that. Maybe he should ask himself why his neighbours don't like him.

I don't remember who made this point, I think it was Stephen Kotkin. He made the point that it's not a crime for countries to shift towards the West. It's not a crime for countries to apply to NATO. No one is being forced to apply for NATO membership. These countries want NATO membership for a reason.

We should be glad if countries want to shift towards the West. The whole "NATO vs Russia" argument takes away agency from countries who have no interest in being under Putin's thumb.
Click to expand...
I'm curious how everyone explains this war without mentioning Russia's involvement in Georgia, Transinitra, South Ossietia, Syria, US policy of simultaneous containment, considered a nonsense at the start of this thread (can't be bothered to go back and cite it, but it's there along the lines of "the US is not engaged in simultaneously containing Russia and China". Ukraine will never be admitted to NATO. Another thing I said at the outset. That it was being weaponized to check Russia, de facto, but that it would never be admitted for very obvious reasons. And that will hold up in ten years time. In twenty.

Agency was the buzzword when it all began.* It died down because, whilst true, that people have agency, there are movements, within which they are involved, that supersede individual agency of even states. I try not to post here, as all know, because it is a highly volatile thread where unless you preach to the converted you are basically attacked (bearing in mind the following: Russia's invasion was illegal, they should retreat to pre-February lines, and so on, are never in question when I comment). A remarkable response, really, not from everyone, but many, when the slightest deviation is raised and not a deviation but directly relevant:

Assume Russia is in the wrong, and then give the best account you can for how and why the war came to be minus "Putin is Hitler". That takes account of Russia's wrongful invasion, illegal, and so on, and also requires people to think about all kinds of things that historians tend to write about when discussing how wars came to be and why they came to be. Not "word salad" unless you're selectively illiterate. A fairly normal, non "big-word", post, I think, and not pro-Russian.

Sir Matt said:
Russia has made minimal gains (primarily around Bakhmut) while Ukraine has pushed the Russians back on two fronts.
Click to expand...
The map, which one poster was kind enough to share, is basically as it was. The movements have been tiny with respect to where we were 200 days ago if you just look at a time-lapse.

Not trying to argue, just curious how people explain the entire war beyond "Russia invaded Ukraine" (that is obvious and no one disputes it).

*Agency can go so many ways when we take propaganda away. The agency of the pro-Assad faction, the Saudis, the separatist-pro-Russians, the pro-American non-Taliban, and on and on forever. It's usually a bunch of tripe served by whichever state happens to require it. Very true for those immediately involved in the conflict, the Ukrainians, who do indeed have agency and want to route the Russians from their land and then rebuild. Very much a load of shite when served as secondary/or twentieth iterative rhetoric by politicians lobbying for arms deals.

Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah and a butterfly flapped it’s wing in the Jurassic era…
Click to expand...
War and Peace by Tolstoy: Napoleon just did some stuff and that was it. He was a cnut. The end. Critics: "Remarkable lack of word salad".


Peace deal by Decemeber or January is my hunch. Ceasefire, if not peace. Hopefully not wrong.
 
Last edited:


Feck the United Nations as an organisation. They should have been shut down since their failures in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s.
 
neverdie said:
I'm curious how everyone explains this war without mentioning Russia's involvement in Georgia, Transinitra, South Ossietia, Syria, US policy of simultaneous containment, considered a nonsense at the start of this thread (can't be bothered to go back and cite it, but it's there along the lines of "the US is not engaged in simultaneously containing Russia and China". Ukraine will never be admitted to NATO. Another thing I said at the outset. That it was being weaponized to check Russia, de facto, but that it would never be admitted for very obvious reasons. And that will hold up in ten years time. In twenty.

Agency was the buzzword when it all began.* It died down because, whilst true, that people have agency, there are movements, within which they are involved, that supersede individual agency of even states. I try not to post here, as all know, because it is a highly volatile thread where unless you preach to the converted you are basically attacked (bearing in mind the following: Russia's invasion was illegal, they should retreat to pre-February lines, and so on, are never in question when I comment). A remarkable response, really, not from everyone, but many, when the slightest deviation is raised and not a deviation but directly relevant:

Assume Russia is in the wrong, and then give the best account you can for how and why the war came to be minus "Putin is Hitler". That takes account of Russia's wrongful invasion, illegal, and so on, and also requires people to think about all kinds of things that historians tend to write about when discussing how wars came to be and why they came to be. Not "word salad" unless you're selectively illiterate. A fairly normal, non "big-word", post, I think, and not pro-Russian.


The map, which one poster was kind enough to share, is basically as it was. The movements have been tiny with respect to where we were 200 days ago if you just look at a time-lapse.

Not trying to argue, just curious how people explain the entire war beyond "Russia invaded Ukraine" (that is obvious and no one disputes it).

*Agency can go so many ways when we take propaganda away. The agency of the pro-Assad faction, the Saudis, the separatist-pro-Russians, the pro-American non-Taliban, and on and on forever. It's usually a bunch of tripe served by whichever state happens to require it. Very true for those immediately involved in the conflict, the Ukrainians, who do indeed have agency and want to route the Russians from their land and then rebuild. Very much a load of shite when served as secondary/or twentieth iterative rhetoric by politicians lobbying for arms deals.


War and Peace by Tolstoy: Napoleon just did some stuff and that was it. He was a cnut. The end. Critics: "Remarkable lack of word salad".


Peace deal by Decemeber or January is my hunch. Ceasefire, if not peace. Hopefully not wrong.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Who do you think will initiate it?
 
klsv said:
Sorry, that's not it. I loved Chomsky, went to a few talks he gave, few e-mails, translated some of his texts, read a few books even! Always disagreed with some of his ideas but it wasn't too bad. Sadly we broke up during the Syrian Civil War. A part of the left felt like he betrayed the people to side with power just because USA bad. A pattern which he keeps repeating. Much like some of the left (MLM) is stuck in one point in the history, Chump's stuck in another era. He peaked during the 70s and 80s, the world is very different now. I can't hate him, he's like 129 years old. That takes a toll on you.
Click to expand...

So you stop lovinh his analysis and reasoning because he stopped thinking the way you do? I understand disagreements with certain points on some people that you usually agree, but if you loved at some point his analysis maybe he still right in some points even if it pains to recognize it is the case. Maybe between his analysis and the people that they feel betrayed there is a middle point and it should not be dismissed flat out what he expose. After all he has been been and incredible mind from the 20th century and knows much more than we can see
 
All this pseudo-intellectual bollocks about the reasons behind the war reminds me of "her skirt was too short, she was asking for it".

End of the day you could take different actions that might have lead to you not being raped, but it really doesn't matter once you have. Nothing makes it right, and the rapist deserves anything that comes their way.

Once you start massacring civilians in Bucha and things like that you have no moral authority any more and that is the end of the story. You are scum and deserve what's coming to you.
 
neverdie said:
What do you think it was about, then? Control (Russian) of Ukraine by proxy is a given. But that implies NATO (the US checking Russia in Ukraine after Russia checked the US in Syria). If that doesn't factor into your analysis, whether Putin is Hitler and NATO are Gandhi (just rhetorical), then I don't see how people explain the war at all. We all know the US began to arm Ukraine roughly around the time of the Arab Spring when Russia, post-2008 through 2011. was starting to act against US interests in all sorts of places. Do people just leave that out of the analysis altogether? That's why it made/makes sense for the US to do precisely what it did (and why it didn't seem like a good idea for Russia to invade). I'm curious to see how people would approach an analysis of the war, maybe later, in detail (whatever their conclusion). Forget NATO is wrong, or Russia is evil, (we can just assume people from whatever "side" will assume such things anyway). Why did Russia invade? Why did the US arm Ukraine (many years prior to the Russian invasion)? And so on. Not looking to antagonize people but actually looking for a fairly comprehensive counter-argument to my own argument if anyone is willing (perhaps different thread?).

If Russia didn't invade Georgia, protect the Assad regime, and various other things, does the US bother with moving into Ukraine at all? I don't think so. Russia isn't mentioned as geopolitical foe to the US until 2007/8 when Putin starts doing various things contrary to US aims. Genuinely curious, and now is maybe not the right time, as to how people lay it all out.
Click to expand...

A prosperous democratic Ukraine is a direct threat to Putin's rule of Russia, that plus Imperialist traits and the fact Ukraine was under no defensive treaties = War in Ukraine, the opportunity was there. He just took too long about it, Ukraine of 2022 is a different beast to when they first invaded in 2014.

Your right about this war ending just as a lot of us predicted earlier on in this thread, and others looking a bit foolish. It was evident to many of us that Russia lost this war 4 weeks in, then it just became a matter of time. Everything did hang on them taking Kyiv within a few weeks, but we quickly learned what Ukraine was capable of and we all knew the aid would flood in. Also, the common denominator of aid giving countries is free democracies, not strictly NATO.

Don't be disheartened by maps not moving much, the big picture is a whole lot different to a year or 6 months ago. Russian high command right now is in complete chaos. Their entire infantry force practically is in Ukraine, as evident by the lack of response to incursions and Wagner. They are clearly already desperate for more troops and yet no 'mass mobilisation' that gets thrown around as their 'escalation' option. Russia grows weaker by the day, Ukraine grows stronger and that's well set to continue. Ukraine is currently hammering positions behind the lines and finding much success. HIMARS is very active again after a 6 month hiatus, hitting support lines and hunting artillery positions. They don't do this without a follow up, sitting on their heels just means Russia repairs and replaces and all that ammo was wasted. Ukraine has plans, the counter-offensive is just getting started. Right now there's no point throwing men at trenches while this DPICM are on route.

On Crimea, Ukraine will take Crimea for two reasons.
1. The war will never truly end without Ukraine taking Crimea, its been turned into one big military base for the sole purpose of subjugating Ukraine.
2. Once Ukraine reaches the Azov sea on the south coast, Crimea is there for the taking and there's not a whole lot Russia can do about it.
Maybe a third reason... Zelensky has been quite clear that a decision like giving up on Crimea would have to go to the people in a referendum. When the feck exactly do you expect that to pass?
 
4bars said:
So you stop lovinh his analysis and reasoning because he stopped thinking the way you do? I understand disagreements with certain points on some people that you usually agree, but if you loved at some point his analysis maybe he still right in some points even if it pains to recognize it is the case. Maybe between his analysis and the people that they feel betrayed there is a middle point and it should not be dismissed flat out what he expose. After all he has been been and incredible mind from the 20th century and knows much more than we can see
Click to expand...
Or maybe his analysis of today doesn't match the standard that he himself established in the XXth century? Not to be an ageist but he's simply not the same Chomsky that was making colossal breakthroughs in linguistics and (in a lesser way in my opinion) in political theory half a century ago.
 
4bars said:
So you stop lovinh his analysis and reasoning because he stopped thinking the way you do? I understand disagreements with certain points on some people that you usually agree, but if you loved at some point his analysis maybe he still right in some points even if it pains to recognize it is the case. Maybe between his analysis and the people that they feel betrayed there is a middle point and it should not be dismissed flat out what he expose. After all he has been been and incredible mind from the 20th century and knows much more than we can see
Click to expand...

I am definitely not saying his entire theory is shit now. Some of his ideas are timeless and still relevant. I do think that he is a bit stuck in the Cold War era narratives when it comes to foreign policy though. It could be worse, though. I know people who try to take the ideas of Marx and implement them today, only to discover that the world has moved on a bit. Doesn't mean Marx was an idiot, though. I'm also not going to hide that one of the reasons for having a slight dislike today is personal. One of the first childhood memories that I have is seeing Russian tanks leaving my city after 50 years of occupation. As a leftist myself, it's a bit uneasy to see "peace" activists and academics in the west saying anyone else but Russia is at fault in this conflict. Just seems a bit cynical.
 
klsv said:
I am definitely not saying his entire theory is shit now. Some of his ideas are timeless and still relevant. I do think that he is a bit stuck in the Cold War era narratives when it comes to foreign policy though. It could be worse, though. I know people who try to take the ideas of Marx and implement them today, only to discover that the world has moved on a bit. Doesn't mean Marx was an idiot, though. I'm also not going to hide that one of the reasons for having a slight dislike today is personal. One of the first childhood memories that I have is seeing Russian tanks leaving my city after 50 years of occupation. As a leftist myself, it's a bit uneasy to see "peace" activists and academics in the west saying anyone else but Russia is at fault in this conflict. Just seems a bit cynical.
Click to expand...

No need to hold back, he's a complete loon nowadays unfortunately, it happens.
 
klsv said:
I feel he went down the route that many western leftists go. Whenever there are uprisings in places like Ukraine (orange revolution, maidan) or Syria (arab spring/the civil war) they are quick to play it down and call it CIA's secret plot, yeah, a bit of an exaggeration from my part, but still. It's as if we (eastern Europeans) and people in the middle east are not capable of protesting without the US/NATO throwing money at us. As if we don't understand the complex issues of geopolitics etc. Very west-centered view IMO. With Syria, I feel like Chomsky joined Putin and many others in their rants of "there's no moderate opposition in Syria" etc. He at least had sympathy for the Kurds but lacked any for the Syrian people fighting Assad. I don't want to derail this thread further, let me just say, as someone who lives in a "former Soviet" country, I really don't think Putin is the right one to free us from neo-liberalism, rise of the far-right and American imperialism. The part of the western left that thinks that way needs a reality check. It's a very weird take on the white savior complex.
Click to expand...
I’m glad a non-Westerner could take the time to explain this elegantly. It is so insulting whenever I here people label Maidan a CIA plot or whatever other garbage.

When people first went out to protest in Ukraine, it was just some young people wanting to do their part in casually voicing their opposition to a presidential decision, with no expectation of the subsequent butterfly effect. The only person to blame for the subsequent fall of Yanukovych’s government is Yanukovych himself, when he continually escalated, escalated and escalated, managing to unite the Ukrainian public against his brutality.
 
neverdie said:
The map, which one poster was kind enough to share, is basically as it was. The movements have been tiny with respect to where we were 200 days ago if you just look at a time-lapse.

Not trying to argue, just curious how people explain the entire war beyond "Russia invaded Ukraine" (that is obvious and no one disputes it).

*Agency can go so many ways when we take propaganda away. The agency of the pro-Assad faction, the Saudis, the separatist-pro-Russians, the pro-American non-Taliban, and on and on forever. It's usually a bunch of tripe served by whichever state happens to require it. Very true for those immediately involved in the conflict, the Ukrainians, who do indeed have agency and want to route the Russians from their land and then rebuild. Very much a load of shite when served as secondary/or twentieth iterative rhetoric by politicians lobbying for arms deals.
Click to expand...

In the post I responded to, you said within the last year. Now it's 200 days, I assume because that's more in line with your argument. Which is it? Of course the last 200 days will show less movement because there was a whole winter and the Russians had time to mine thousands of square kilometers of land, dig defensive trenches, etc., which they didn't have time to do in Kherson or Kharkiv.
 
harms said:
Or maybe his analysis of today doesn't match the standard that he himself established in the XXth century? Not to be an ageist but he's simply not the same Chomsky that was making colossal breakthroughs in linguistics and (in a lesser way in my opinion) in political theory half a century ago.
Click to expand...
klsv said:
I am definitely not saying his entire theory is shit now. Some of his ideas are timeless and still relevant. I do think that he is a bit stuck in the Cold War era narratives when it comes to foreign policy though. It could be worse, though. I know people who try to take the ideas of Marx and implement them today, only to discover that the world has moved on a bit. Doesn't mean Marx was an idiot, though. I'm also not going to hide that one of the reasons for having a slight dislike today is personal. One of the first childhood memories that I have is seeing Russian tanks leaving my city after 50 years of occupation. As a leftist myself, it's a bit uneasy to see "peace" activists and academics in the west saying anyone else but Russia is at fault in this conflict. Just seems a bit cynical.
Click to expand...

You are most likely both right. Age doesnt help to anyone. He surely is nor as fresh like in his prime, and also, people can be stuck in an era, specially if you were considered a reference.

At the same time, knowing that russia is 100% responsible to rach the point to invade ukraine and needs to be punished even more than what had been, i believe also that before that it was a defeat of russia in the diplomacy part of the geopolitical aspect of the conflict that made them go to the war path what they were not able to win in their influence over ukraine. Tough luck; they had to accept that they were losing ukraine but they decided to kill thousands of innocents and destroy a democrqtic country.

But to lose in the diplomatic aspect, i also have no doubts that they lost because the influence of other actors. As i have no doubta that russia influenced in the US and UK elections (among other countries), and ither countries like Qatar infuenced in the EU through payments to high profile people like the EU VP among others, i have 0 doubta that US used their influence in a way in Ukraine via Maiden ( @TMDaines , please i am not sayibg full conspiracy) or other actors, as they did back in the day backing Boris Yeltsin. After all, Russia is the big ol' enemy and they will do anything to weaken it

Again Russia is 100% to blame for the war, but i am of the opinion that the diplomatic path that pushed russia to be a sore loser, was influenced by US. I have proof? No, so is solely my opinion based on what all the big powers had been doing during history

And chomsky, he is wrong to blame US for the war, because nations should strive to avoid this path if they were not military provoked, but he might sbowballed for the influence that he knows US had on the diplomatic/geopolitical soft power defeat of Russia in his theoretical area of influence.

And to clarify more, area of influence or not, Ukraine should be free to decide his future without any hint of permision of Russia, US, EU or whoever. Before, during and after the war. Like any other nation/grup of people
 
Always got the sense that the issue many have with Chomsky isn’t necessarily his analysis (where he’s as subject to error as anyone but at least extremely meticulous in making his case), but concerns his discriminatory extension of solidarity - unconditional for those at the receiving end of American imperialist violence and strategy, but full of realist caveats for those who fall outside this framing. So in that respect I don’t think his approach has changed much over the decades, I think 1970s Chomsky would be analyzing 21st century Syria and Ukraine in much the same way as he is today.
 
4bars said:
You are most likely both right. Age doesnt help to anyone. He surely is nor as fresh like in his prime, and also, people can be stuck in an era, specially if you were considered a reference.

At the same time, knowing that russia is 100% responsible to rach the point to invade ukraine and needs to be punished even more than what had been, i believe also that before that it was a defeat of russia in the diplomacy part of the geopolitical aspect of the conflict that made them go to the war path what they were not able to win in their influence over ukraine. Tough luck; they had to accept that they were losing ukraine but they decided to kill thousands of innocents and destroy a democrqtic country.

But to lose in the diplomatic aspect, i also have no doubts that they lost because the influence of other actors. As i have no doubta that russia influenced in the US and UK elections (among other countries), and ither countries like Qatar infuenced in the EU through payments to high profile people like the EU VP among others, i have 0 doubta that US used their influence in a way in Ukraine via Maiden ( @TMDaines , please i am not sayibg full conspiracy) or other actors, as they did back in the day backing Boris Yeltsin. After all, Russia is the big ol' enemy and they will do anything to weaken it

Again Russia is 100% to blame for the war, but i am of the opinion that the diplomatic path that pushed russia to be a sore loser, was influenced by US. I have proof? No, so is solely my opinion based on what all the big powers had been doing during history

And chomsky, he is wrong to blame US for the war, because nations should strive to avoid this path if they were not military provoked, but he might sbowballed for the influence that he knows US had on the diplomatic/geopolitical soft power defeat of Russia in his theoretical area of influence.

And to clarify more, area of influence or not, Ukraine should be free to decide his future without any hint of permision of Russia, US, EU or whoever. Before, during and after the war. Like any other nation/grup of people
Click to expand...

If it's 100% their fault, what does US or anybody else's influence have to do with anything? This is just a really apologetic "Ukraine's skirt was too short". Or I suppose perhaps "the US made Ukraine wear too short a skirt".
 
TwoSheds said:
If it's 100% their fault, what does US or anybody else's influence have to do with anything? This is just a really apologetic "Ukraine's skirt was too short". Or I suppose perhaps "the US made Ukraine wear too short a skirt".
Click to expand...

I said exactly that is 100% russia's fault. The rest you are wrong on your assumptions
 
TwoSheds said:
All this pseudo-intellectual bollocks about the reasons behind the war reminds me of "her skirt was too short, she was asking for it".

End of the day you could take different actions that might have lead to you not being raped, but it really doesn't matter once you have. Nothing makes it right, and the rapist deserves anything that comes their way.

Once you start massacring civilians in Bucha and things like that you have no moral authority any more and that is the end of the story. You are scum and deserve what's coming to you.
Click to expand...

Forget the Ukraine war for a second. You don't think that examining the causes of war is a valid line of study?
 
TMDaines said:
Go on then. How did the US pull the puppet strings on Maidan?
Click to expand...

I know that is too of a sensitive topic with what you are going through, so i am not trying to wum you

As i said in my previous post it is just my opinion based on my logic of how big powers had been behaving through history

In ukraine, being maiden or any anti russian political clima, i am not saying that was meticulous orchestrated and organized it. But surely they influenced actors and the temperature of the moment. Is as easy to proof as many other claims from russia influencing other countries.

Then there are articles that you can read, from ukraine to other countries that had been influenced

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

Then it might be or not true. Or partial. But reading over and over, again my opinion, something, even partially must be true

All this had come from why Chomsky believe that US guilty of the ukraine war, that as i said, it isnt. Is 100% russia's fault.
 
Bert_ said:
Forget the Ukraine war for a second. You don't think that examining the causes of war is a valid line of study?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think, knowing what you know now, that this war was avoidable? Imagine even that Ukraine had somehow become entirely pro-Russian and bent entirely to their will, do you think another non-Nato country wouldn't have been next? Not every country on Russia's border can be pro Russian so there will always be a flashpoint with an imperialist nation that wants to expand.
 
The grind continues. Despite Russian multi layered fortifications, Ukraine slowly advances on Bakhmut's flanks and towards Soledar. Klishchiivka is in danger of an encirclement and Soledar would be huge to take back, but it's still a long way to go.
The cost of those advances in human lives and equipment will be considerable, but I'm sure Ukraine tries to be as efficient as possible. The only other option is to do it the Wagner way and lose 20.000 men for 10 km ground. But that is out of the question of course for an army that values their soldiers. Let's hope that the new cluster shells will help them to advance.
 
I don’t think Ukraine will settle for anything less than 100% control of their territory including Crimea.

That makes it hard to predict how this war will end. It could end with Putin losing control.
 
NLunited said:
I don’t think Ukraine will settle for anything less than 100% control of their territory including Crimea.

That makes it hard to predict how this war will end. It could end with Putin losing control.
Click to expand...
I think some sort of deal that includes Crimea either being Russian or under some independence might be feasible. Depends what their progress on the battlefield is for the next year and a half.
 
The Firestarter said:
I think some sort of deal that includes Crimea either being Russian or under some independence might be feasible. Depends what their progress on the battlefield is for the next year and a half.
Click to expand...
Nope, hatred against Russia is too big, Ukranians will not give up as long as they keep getting support in the form of weaponry.
 
NLunited said:
Nope, hatred against Russia is too big, Ukranians will not give up as long as they keep getting support in the form of weaponry.
Click to expand...
Well thats the thing isn't it, that support is not guaranteed long term, depending on who gets elected in the white House.
 
NLunited said:
I don’t think Ukraine will settle for anything less than 100% control of their territory including Crimea.

That makes it hard to predict how this war will end. It could end with Putin losing control.
Click to expand...

I dont know. It depends on how much money and young people's lives the leaders are willing to sacrifice. Borders change in war. Denmark lost quite a bit of its southern territory after ww2 despite Germany being the losers. Its a cost benefit exercise in human lives.
 
The Firestarter said:
Well thats the thing isn't it, that support is not guaranteed long term, depending on who gets elected in the white House.
Click to expand...
Damn right, if the next president is right-wing they might back Russia, which would be a fatal mistake. I can’t really imagine that happening, but I could not imagine Trump winning and he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.