Invasion of Ukraine • Page 49

Russian nazism keeps showing its head in the rest of Europe

 

Crazy we’re seeing nazism resurface in the 21st century - it’s going to take Russia decades to recover from this

 

My new mug arrived -->



and I switched it up to a new brand of vodka too -->

 

I'll say one thing that as impressed me about Ukraine more than anything even moreso than their tactical capabilities on the ground, it's how sophisticated their psyops/information warfare/propaganda is.

 

Flights out of Russia sell out after Putin orders partial call-up

 

Guessing they're mainly one way tickets.

 

well this sucks

 

All I hear when listening to these guys is "We should just let Putin/Russia take that Ukrainian land they've invaded and taken over", that taking land from another country is totally fine. Ukrainians don't deserve outside help in defending their lands. If you're a major power, and have the means to take land from another country and defend it, by all means that land is now yours.

The ONLY peace worth pursuing at this point, is getting Russia to leave all of Ukraine, including Crimea and the Donbas, nothing less.

 

-------

Random side note: Khor Platinum vodka is delicious. I'm pretty picky with my vodka, and have only been drinking two Japanese vodkas the last few years - one very expensive kind when I can afford it, and one slightly less pricey but still very good when I can't. Apparently Khor Platinum is made from corn and is filtered through birch & alder tree charcoal. Very smooth and makes a great dirty martini.

 

Conflating criticism of NATO's warmongering over the last few decades with support for Putin's actions is disingenuous nonsense imo.

 

In the video they criticize current efforts by the West to support Ukraine - since the only way to solve this war is to defeat Russia on the battlefield, by making this criticism, they imply it’s ok for one nation to invade another and keep that land, if they can pose a big enough threat. THAT is the nonsense you should be speaking of

 

This thread sums up my perspective, worth a read:

 

What this thread doesn’t do is provide a solution. That is the crux of the issue here; we can debate forever about why Putin invaded, but the main matter right now is how to end the war. How would you end this war? How should have the West reacted when Russia invaded on February 24th? What would have been your ideal series of events?

 

The socialist left have never been in power in the US. People like me have no say in any of this. The current war is largely the end result of foreign policy pursued by liberals and conservatives. They created this crisis - it's on them to come up with a solution that doesn't get us all nuked.

Personally, I think the US could have done more right from the start of the war to push for peace in Ukraine, but they have absolutely no interest in that, and it would've been in direct contradiction to their policy up to that point. Joe Biden has even more blood on his hands than Putin (his sanctions on Afghanistan threaten to kill more civilians than two decades of war, his support to Saudi Arabia in the war on Yemen, his support for the invasion of Iraq, etc etc).

 

So you have no thoughts on how it should be solved? At all? Russia starts invading on February 24th, and your answer is "We should have pushed for peace (which meant you're fine with Ukraine giving up territory to Russia?)"? So you criticize supporting Ukraine in defending their land, but can't provide any logical alternative to this course of action? I think the current course of action is absolutely the best way forward, yet you indicate it's not

 

I support peace via a negotiated settlement. After the last 30 years of aggressive foreign policy from the US that would mean concessions on both sides.

The strategy you support has been to consistently demand a heavy escalation of the conflict since it started, which has recently created a counter escalation from Russia which increases the likelihood of nuclear annihilation. It's not going well, is it???

 

This gets back to one of my earlier points - if you invade another country, and take over land, and have the means to defend that stolen land, is it then the duty of the invaded to accept that land has been stolen? Should the allies have not got involved in Europe in WW2? Or is this really all down to the fact that Putin has nukes? I truly don't Putin will get close to the point of actually using a nuke; he gains NOTHING by doing so. China will turn on him, and practically every other ally, bar North Korea, would turn against them. Economy completely cut off, massive protests in the country, and probably the overthrow of the Russian government. The most likely western response to a nuke strike from Russia would be a conventional response; pretty sure they have targets picked out already, but a tit for tat nuke battle with Russia is not something the West would pursue. And I feel those around Putin would have more level heads and prevent the button from being pressed in the first place. As long as no formal invasion of Russia itself takes place, I'm of the opinion that a nuclear strike by Putin is pretty low.

And as someone that is daily looking at updates of the conflict from numerous sources, it's actually been going really well these last few months for the Ukrainians. The HIMARS and other pieces of heavy equipment have really turned things in Ukraine's favor; Russia is suffering staggering losses every day, much more so than the Ukrainian side. The Kharkiv offensive wouldn't have been a success if Ukrainian losses were actually large. They're slowly gaining in the souther Kherson section, and making ground in the east. Right now news has slowed, because they're now planning the next offensive (which I see is probably either towards Mariupol, to cut the eastern and southern Russian forces in half), or towards Sievierodonetsk.

 

I couldn't make it all the way through video, but I did read through those threads. I suppose he does call the war disastrous and unnecessary at the beginning of the thread, but then he writes many many many words after that defending Putin's actions and explaining why he had to do what he did. He seems to be saying the war is unnecessary because the west / NATO are in the wrong. I'm pretty sure that person would call me a western chauvinist though, so I don't think he cares much what my take on any of this is.

The other guy saying " (Moscow?) " in the other thread is straight garbage though. Nobody is trying to go take Moscow. I don't like war, but I do think you have a right to defend your land, and retake it by force if it has been illegally annexed. I think hinting that the Ukrainian forces might storm Moscow instead of going after Crimea, or after retaking Crimea, is crap.

I'm curious what concessions you think Ukraine should give at this point if there were to be a negotiated settlement? Give up any claim to Crimea? Give up the ≈15% of the country currently occupied by Russia? I could see Russia wanting an agreement from them to never join NATO in the future, but I don't think it's reasonable to ask or expect that Ukraine demilitarize at this point.

 

There has been some suggestion of going over the border:

Also:

Secretary of National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine believes Russias collapse has already begun: "dozen of regions ready to leave the Russian Federation"

I think the US/NATO has huge responsibility for the situation Ukraine now finds itself in. If Russia led a military alliance and tried to place nuclear and conventional missiles in say, Mexico, it would be completely unacceptable to the US.

I can't predict 100% what a negotiated settlement would look like, no one can, but I think some of the suggestions you made would have to be on the table. It's not good, but in order to avoid a nuclear confrontation it may be necessary at this point. Of course in my view, it should never have come to this in the first place.