Should we still be backing Ukraine?

[Bobby_2021]

18 minutes ago, enchanted said:

Ukraine got rid of its nuclear weapons in exchange for protection. We have no choice but to protect Ukraine. 

1. Ukraine would not have been invaded if they had nukes in the first place. 

2. Ukraine would not have been invaded if you did not allow their entry into NATO. (muh open door)

This is after explicit warning from Russian foreign ministry. (All related documents linked in the last post I made in this thread.)

3. If Ukraine had joined NATO, you are risking nuclear war among two entities with the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world.

4. Fund the war with the tax money from the average American when America itself is swarmed by hundreds and thousands of illegal immigrants and collapsing social order. Even people of Ukraine do not want to keep fighting this war. The only people winning are the heads of the miliary industrial complex.

All major wars (and genocide) in the 21st century happened due to bad policy making of the United States. It's appalling that people are still in denial about this.

Edited April 10 by Bobby_2021

[enchanted]

16 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

1. Ukraine would not have been invaded if they had nukes in the first place. 

2. Ukraine would not have been invaded if you did not allow their entry into NATO. (muh open door)

This is after explicit warning from Russian foreign ministry. (All related documents linked in the last post I made in this thread.)

3. If Ukraine had joined NATO, you are risking nuclear war among two entities with the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world.

4. Fund the war with the tax money from the average American when America itself is swarmed by hundreds and thousands of illegal immigrants and collapsing social order. Even people of Ukraine do not want to keep fighting this war. The only people winning are the heads of the miliary industrial complex.

All major wars (and genocide) in the 21st century happened due to bad policy making of the United States. It's appalling that people are still in denial about this.

Right, so NOT funding Ukraine will lead to the genocide of the Ukrainian people and is a bad policy choice by the US in the 21 st Century. 

[Karmadhi]

1 minute ago, enchanted said:

Right, so NOT funding Ukraine will lead to the genocide of the Ukrainian people

What genocide? Show me some numbers to prove that absurd claim.

[enchanted]

2 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

What genocide? Show me some numbers to prove that absurd claim.

From Wikipedia

"Casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War included six deaths during the 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, 14,200–14,400 military and civilian deaths during the War in Donbas, and up to 500,000 estimated casualties during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."

500000 is alot of people. You can call it genocide or whatever you want. 

Edited April 11 by enchanted

[BlueOak]

On 4/9/2024 at 8:07 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

Putin being a romantic lover of the lost glory of the USSR is a western creation. Creating such an empire is too unsustainable. Putin is not dumb enough to not see it. For former Soviet Republics having, pro-Russian governments, absolutely yes. That is the ideal case for Putin. But them being neutral was good enough. 

What do you mean a "democratic coup". It was a coup that overthrew a democratically elected minister. A big bias from the west is assuming anyone who isn't pro-western must be anti-democratic. They also run the same propaganda in India. Modi must be anti-democratic, even though he came to power from winning elections alone. 

In reality, the west wants power, not democracy. 

Putin wanted a seamless free flow of trade and harmony between the former soviet republics and a pro-western president would block this. The encroachment of NATO is the problem, not per say of Ukraine joining NATO. Of course, in the long run, it would end up in Ukraine joining NATO. 

Nah Putin has won the strategic war. Ukraine as a country is doomed. NATO would never dare to touch Russia for threats of nuclear escalation, and you do not want to do that. 

Listen, you cannot isolate and pretend to not take into account the interest of a country as big as Russia. IF you corner them, they know to fight back real hard. 

Also, what Putin really hates is a western sphere of influence which is slowly creeping over Ukraine, of which getting NATO membership is the final ritual. It is not going to change anything even if Ukraine was not planning on joining NATO. Russia's plan is to avoid that exact scenario and it seems he did well to succeed in it.

Anyways the United States was indeed expecting Ukraine to join NATO in the name of FREEDOM. in NOV 2021

https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/

The exact same Bucharest summit that led to the invasion of Georgia, also led to Ukraine war. The only difference was that US was inviting Ukraine to join while they also had a pro-western president. 

So, the idea that Ukraine would never be joining NATO anyway is pretty baseless. 

There were plenty of executives in the CIA that warned of this outcome. The video goes into the details.

It is even more impressive when Mearsheimer literally predicted the invasion of Ukraine right from 2015.  

That is an impressive prediction. He saw it coming. So, you might want to take him more seriously. 

To fit your theory, you ignore:
The pattern of Putin fighting 8 wars in former USSR territories to get to this point.
All the territories he's annexed till this point, including parts of Ukraine.
Every point I've made previously about the cause of the war you've not addressed to better fit the narrative you'd prefer. India is not neutral, and neither are you. They support Russia economically and allow it to continue to finance the war, that is choosing a side, as is your preference for the dictator to win his war.

A neutral person would say, let them get on with it, or I have no strong opinion one way or the other. You want Russia to win the war, to annex territory, threaten nukes/food/energy, bomb civilians for two years, and use its military in Europe while getting away with it? What signal does that send to China, and Russia in 5 years? It's worked twice; let's do it again. The world does not operate in a vacuum. 

It would be supreme stupidity to allow Russia to break Ukrainian lines or legitimize what they have taken. AGAIN. Then regroup, rebuild and go again. The line is held here, or it's held further back in Ukraine 5-10 years from now, then Moldova, then the Baltics, then Poland, then Germany. Until either Russia is defeated, or one man's ego and Russia's lust for war are finished, and people stop making excuses for it.

Yes, a democratic coup. Russia doesn't hold elections LOL. One candidate runs, and everyone else is for show. It forces people to vote the way it wants by fear and suppression, which is not democracy in any shape or form. The reason that the coup happened, (I watched it unfold), was that students were beaten for protesting, and then snipers started opening fire on the crowds that protested the beating, even the church came out in opposition to the actions. The 'opposition party' (joke) couldn't even take the concerns seriously. So it wasn't just a dictatorship, but a stupid dictatorship.

A border is not a problem to free trade, there are borders all over the world, so your argument makes no sense. Russia wants control, as does BRICS. The people in Ukraine are not aligned with Russia they haven't been for decades, and especially so since Putin has killed hundreds of thousands of their family members. He and you, on this issue, live in the past sadly. These regions will never be given up peacefully, not for a hundred years, that's how invasions of foreign countries are.

Again, with just America. NATO has many voices. Numerous leaders didn't want Ukraine in NATO and they couldn't be in NATO because Russia held Crimea, so it was an impossibility anyway.

I don't take  Mearsheimer seriously because he can only see Russia vs America, which misses the 19 other reasons for the war or the actual realities on the ground, or the long history of what led us to this point.

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

What genocide? Show me some numbers to prove that absurd claim.

We can look at a few, let's start with an older one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Kill Ukrainians - Move Russian speakers in over a long period - Claim land is Russian.
Conclusion: Never let the Russian population settle in your country, and stop teaching the Russian language so they can't use that nonsense as an excuse for war. All I heard at the start of this war, was to protect the Russian speakers! Despite the fact, most spoke Ukrainian too and there was no tension previous to Russia's meddling and malice.

It's closer to ethnic cleansing. Russia either shipped out Ukrainians living in those regions, including children, which is what Putin's war crime charges are, then brought in Russians to replace them, or directly conscripted Ukrainian men, forcing them into the LPR and DPR forces to fight their countrymen. Doing that is illegal in war, but what do BRICS and Russia care for the law or the rules we live by? Not much from what I've seen.

It's a new era, expect brutality as we see more of it globally, until people develop respect for life again, if that's at all possible.



 

Edited April 11 by BlueOak

[Bobby_2021]

8 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Every point I've made previously about the cause of the war you've not addressed to better fit the narrative you'd prefer.

I cannot fit ever random thing that happened in the east to make sense of "my narrative".

If you have something that goes against "my narrative" that will be good to hear.

The train of events that happened 4 months, leading upto the war are pretty telling. That's more than enough to prove that NATO expansion was the reason for invasion. 

I don't have to make sense of soviet invasion of Afghanistan in my narrative for it to be valid. 

[BlueOak]

20 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

1. Ukraine would not have been invaded if they had nukes in the first place. 

2. Ukraine would not have been invaded if you did not allow their entry into NATO. (muh open door)

This is after explicit warning from Russian foreign ministry. (All related documents linked in the last post I made in this thread.)

3. If Ukraine had joined NATO, you are risking nuclear war among two entities with the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world.

4. Fund the war with the tax money from the average American when America itself is swarmed by hundreds and thousands of illegal immigrants and collapsing social order. Even people of Ukraine do not want to keep fighting this war. The only people winning are the heads of the miliary industrial complex.

All major wars (and genocide) in the 21st century happened due to bad policy making of the United States. It's appalling that people are still in denial about this.

1, Yes, they were very stupid to trust Russia.
2, Missing 20 other reasons.
3, Russia is risking nuclear war invading into Europe. We are risking other countries going to war, if we don't stop Russia here.
4, Better a controlled frontline in Ukraine than a regional war across all of Europe, which we are close to right now. But you mention America because, guess what, focusing on Europe would bring you closer to it and understanding the other side of it.

5, All Major wars are fought against spheres of influence hitting each other. Traditionally, for the last few decades, this has been Russia vs America, or Russia vs China. Now it's BRICS vs NATO. It doesn't change, because people don't change.

Edited April 11 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

13 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I cannot fit ever random thing that happened in the east to make sense of "my narrative".

If you have something that goes against "my narrative" that will be good to hear.

The train of events that happened 4 months, leading upto the war are pretty telling. That's more than enough to prove that NATO expansion was the reason for invasion. 

I don't have to make sense of soviet invasion of Afghanistan in my narrative for it to be valid. 

I can keep pointing them out, but it only fits your narrative to talk about America and NATO.
I can keep pointing out how you can't even see Europe, let alone Eastern Europe in your narrative.

To consider the region itself, you'd get closer to the other side's position because it'd be closer to where the war is being fought.

It's like me telling you about India and all I talk about is China and Brazil

NB - I'm not saying you'll agree with me either but your argument would be vastly improved, because it would contain the region that is in focus, as the focus of your argument.

Edited April 11 by BlueOak

[zazen]

“Russia is already at war with us.”

''We used the CIA to funnel money and weapons to Chechen rebels to help foment violence intended to break up Russia into component parts.

We used the CIA to create a malignant political “opposition” designed to undermine the Russian government.

We continued to push for the expansion of NATO to include Ukraine even though a sitting U.S. Ambassador warned it could lead to war.

We facilitated a violent coup in Ukraine for the purpose of installing an anti-Russian ultra-nationalist government.

We allowed the CIA to build 12 bases inside Ukraine for the purpose of carrying operations targeting Russia.

We built a Ukrainian military designed for the sole purpose of fighting Russians.

We facilitated the genocide of Russians in the Donbas by supporting Ukrainian/German/French non-compliance with the Minsk accords.

We ignored all efforts by Russia to resolve the Ukrainian issue peacefully.

We supplied tens of billions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine in order to sustain a conflict we hoped would lead to the strategic defeat of Russia.

You have a warped understanding of the world, General. Russia isn’t at war with us. We’re at war with Russia.''

 

Source: 

 

[Bobby_2021]

25 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

can keep pointing them out, but it only fits your narrative to talk about America and NATO.

America is who is controlling NATO. Of course that fits "my narrative".

26 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

can keep pointing out how you can't even see Europe, let alone Eastern Europe in your narrative.

America is in charge of deciding what happens in Europe. 

Everything boils down to American leadership and their policies. Of course that's "my narrative".

I am criticising America here. I don't get what you are accusing me of.

Including irrelevant stuff to "my narrative" doesn't contradict it. Show me how it contradicts my narrative. 

You make broad and vague statements that are not compelling enough. And none of them goes against my narrative either.

For ex: Even if I accept the cartoonish western narrative of Putin being an evil dictator seeking the former glory of USSR, that doesn't invalidate the fact that NATO was the reason for the invasion.

Those are merely general stuff that's good enough talking points that gained popularity because the western media repeated them enough times. They don't have any merit to it.

[Bobby_2021]

24 minutes ago, zazen said:

We continued to push for the expansion of NATO to include Ukraine even though a sitting U.S. Ambassador warned it could lead to war

Sane leaders in the CIA warned of this war from the 90s.

24 minutes ago, zazen said:

We ignored all efforts by Russia to resolve the Ukrainian issue peacefully.

This part is the most important that the western camp denies.

Reasonable means were exhausted and unreasonable means were pursued. Bad things happened.

[BlueOak]

Scott Ritter as the source. A convicted sex offender, who ran over to Russia to continue to vent his frustrations for a moronic Iraq war, and because he's a degenerate who didn't like being punished for it.
Source; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13089135

@zazen

'Ultra-nationalist government?'
He means the least nationalist government so far. This is a repeated Russian lie about Nazis, the far right got 2% of the vote in the Ukraine election, much less than Russia's far right is or was. If anything war increases right wing views out of necessity.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election

'We continued to push for the expansion of NATO to include Ukraine even though a sitting U.S. Ambassador warned it could lead to war.'
Countries join NATO out of fear of Russia, something Russia has instilled in them over centuries. This would take an understanding that there are more than two countries in the world, something a Russian puppet like Ritter cannot do.

We used the CIA to funnel money and weapons to Chechen rebels to help foment violence intended to break up Russia into component parts.
Oh right, so now America is blamed for Russia invading Chechnya twice, and reducing it to rubble, a country over two hundred times smaller than Russia (quick calculation) is supposed to 'break it apart'. Ritter's delusions go into overdrive.

We allowed the CIA to build 12 bases inside Ukraine for the purpose of carrying operations targeting Russia.
Source for some of these? Other than a man with an axe to grind? I'd be very happy if it were true at this point, better than 18-year-old soldiers fighting out their disagreements.

We built a Ukrainian military designed for the sole purpose of fighting Russians.
One he got right yes. America and England were two of the few countries outside of Eastern Europe, that could see the Russian pattern of continually invading former USSR countries, even the Ukrainians didn't believe they'd be hit. They trained and prepared an army which ended up being very valuable in pushing the Russians out of Ukraine, without it we'd be in WW3 already.

We ignored all efforts by Russia to resolve the Ukrainian issue peacefully.
A straight lie from a dictator's mouth. Also known as I spent decades pulling away from NATO and the EU, fearmongering about them to my people, and when our perspectives don't align (surprise surprise) I attack. 

We used the CIA to create a malignant political “opposition” designed to undermine the Russian government.
Aka anyone who speaks against the 'glorious' fragile dictator is killed.  

We facilitated the genocide of Russians in the Donbas by supporting Ukrainian/German/French non-compliance with the Minsk accords.
These regions lived in peace till Russia came.

We supplied tens of billions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine in order to sustain a conflict we hoped would lead to the strategic defeat of Russia.
Yes, to a stalemate to control and hold the war where it is.

You have a warped understanding of the world, General. Russia isn’t at war with us. We’re at war with Russia.
Hyperbole. You'll know when WW3 starts.

[Bobby_2021]

8 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

We ignored all efforts by Russia to resolve the Ukrainian issue peacefully.
A straight lie from a dictator's mouth. Also known as I spent decades pulling away from NATO and the EU, fearmongering about them to my people, and when our perspectives don't align (surprise surprise) I attack. 

https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-a-press-availability-13/

Except that it's not a lie. The talks took place towards the end of Jan 2022. 

The US said gave a firm No to the Russian foreign minister who asked to keep Ukraine away from NATO.

A month later, the invasion happens.

Edited April 11 by Bobby_2021

[BlueOak]

7 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

America is who is controlling NATO. Of course that fits "my narrative".

America is in charge of deciding what happens in Europe. 

Everything boils down to American leadership and their policies. Of course that's "my narrative".

I am criticising America here. I don't get what you are accusing me of.

Including irrelevant stuff to "my narrative" doesn't contradict it. Show me how it contradicts my narrative. 

You make broad and vague statements that are not compelling enough. And none of them goes against my narrative either.

For ex: Even if I accept the cartoonish western narrative of Putin being an evil dictator seeking the former glory of USSR, that doesn't invalidate the fact that NATO was the reason for the invasion.

Those are merely general stuff that's good enough talking points that gained popularity because the western media repeated them enough times. They don't have any merit to it.

I'm accusing you of using your hatred of America to intentionally avoid talking about a European war.  But I see now it's because you really do not understand NATO or Europe.

America does not control Europe, this is a delusion on your part. I can't put it nicely I'm sorry. Europe is a jigsaw of different cultures, voices, and perspectives. This is something you, Putin, and Russian supporters can't see. So they always frame their points of view by talking about America, a country that isn't even in EUROPE! They always see one voice, but instead, they are dealing with many, so their perspective is always lacking or flawed.

Do you not see how infuriating that is lol. 

A Reality check:

Europe's GDP: $24.02 trillion
America's GDP:  $26.950 trillion

Europe has 751 million people.
America has 334 million people.

Europe is 10,180,000 km squared
America is 9,833,520 km squared

I'm not going to bother cutting Russia off of this, but you can estimate, because that's another thing to understand too, this is a continental war between European powers. It's one that's happened before, and likely is going to happen again.

The concept of 'the west' to me is relatively new, before this war, I didn't even associate myself with 'the west', I was English, now I've accepted it as a label people use, often incorrectly.  Before this war, the NATO power encroaching that you keep telling me about was breaking apart, it was much more nebulous than defined. That's how Europe is, so many different voices pulling it in different ways. To us, it was a treaty, not a single power, a treaty which makes using it for offensive war all but impossible because of all the different competing interests.

If you were to focus on the Eastern European region, you'd have a better understanding of the war, but as you've said to me, you think its America that's driving it. When, in fact, we are closer to war because of Eastern Europe now (and I included Russia in this obviously) The further west you go, the less they are involved in the conflict. The further east, the more their security is threatened.

As a consequence, you can't even see the war itself, or the reasons for it on the ground.

[BlueOak]

12 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-a-press-availability-13/

Except that it's not a lie. The talks took place towards the end of Jan 2022. 

The US said gave a firm No to the Russian foreign minister who asked to keep Ukraine away from NATO.

A month later, the invasion happens.

It's a lie, Putin has engineered the hatred in the Russian population as a way of maintaining control, and then attacked when the perspectives were too far apart.

Ukraine offered Neutrality and Putin ignored it.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-offers-neutrality-exchange-nato-style-security-guarantees-russia-talks-2022-03-29/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/30/ukraine-offer-neutrality-meaning-constitution-russia-what-does-neutral-status-country-mean-how-would-it-work

 

[Bobby_2021]

24 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

It's a lie, Putin has engineered the hatred in the Russian population as a way of maintaining control, and then attacked when the perspectives were too far apart.

Lmao it's the official US government source reporting on the talks you said didn't happen. 

[BlueOak]

4 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Lmao it's the official US government source reporting on the talks you said didn't happen. 

No. Here is what I replied to and said:

Ritters Quote: We ignored all efforts by Russia to resolve the Ukrainian issue peacefully. - End quote

I said: A straight lie from a dictator's mouth. Also known as, I spent decades pulling away from NATO and the EU, fearmongering about them to my people, and when our perspectives don't align (surprise surprise) I attack. - End Quote

I did not say talks didn't happen, I said the perspectives are so far apart now they were never going to align. The cultures are so different, that's what happens when two cultures living side by side pull so far apart and cause conflict. Is Russia alone in that responsibility no, but they sure leaned into the hatred.

Edited April 11 by BlueOak

[enchanted]

If fools like us on a forum can't agree what chance the world have? Who is willing to capitulate? 

Edited April 11 by enchanted

[Bobby_2021]

11 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

said the perspectives are so far apart now they were never going to align

You said it's a lie.

Never mind. You are not in a sane state to discuss thematter. Come back after some time, preferably a day or two. We are good.