Invasion of Ukraine • Page 86

I refuse having to start my understanding of the war at Feb 24th 2022.

 

I’m going to stop posting about it now. I can only take being told history started on that date so many times.

Maybe I’ll pick it back up when the next war starts out of nowhere that nobody can explain.

 

I understand events that led up to February 24th, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that Putin made the decision to invade, with no valid excuse to do so, so therefore everything that follows is 100% his fault. If Putin didn’t invade, all these people would be alive.

 

Because that's the date Russia invaded Ukraine, without any valid reason to do so. No valid reason. If Putin backed off and didn't order his troops across, all the troops and civilians that died since February 24th would be alive.

 

Alright I'll delete it

 

I pointed it out before, but basically

1. Ukraine didn't invade Russia
2. Ukraine didn't strike Russia with a missile or whatever

I know I had additional points in the past, but my head is heavy this morning from a cold I think I'm getting, so I can't remember them. But yeah, unless those two points are being done, I don't see any other reason that would make an invasion of another country valid/acceptable. But if you think there are other valid reasons to invade another country I'm all ears

 

Being at my new job at the energy intelligence company for nearly two weeks now, from the predictions our models have made it seems like Russian gas production won't drop all that much in 2023, despite losing Europe as a customer, and the sanctions that are in place. I'm guessing it's China and India that will be picking up a lot of the slack (via a huge increase in LNG ships to receive the gas, since pipelines aren't in place), and so they'll aim to keep production levels high to facilitate these flows. And so despite having to tighten their belts in many areas, I'm guessing the Russian government will funnel most of the gas revenue to critical sectors to keep everything fairly stable

 

Full Ukrainian victory over Russia unlikely, warns top US general

https://ukrainetoday.org/2022/11/17...ry-over-russia-unlikely-warns-top-us-general/

Interesting he'd state something like this out in the open, and I think it can be interpreted in a number of ways. Either it's to serve as a reminder to Zelensky that perhaps Western aid is not indefinite (despite comments from many others saying otherwise), and so to keep negotiations as an option in the future, or he said it so that it would be seen by Putin and company, as psy-ops in a way, to temper their assumption that the West is all in on supporting Ukraine to the end, to help rachet down tensions. I'm guessing the former, but could see the later as possible as well.

Just based on how Ukrainian forces were able to push out Russian forces from the Kharkiv area, and from Kherson, I'd like to think that a military victory is possible, especially in Crimea, based on how hard it would be for Russia to re-supply their forces in the peninsula, now that HIMARS missiles are beginning to rain down at the top of Crimea, and with the Kerch bridge still nearly out of commission for anything but small cars. The east of Ukraine I think will see the stiffest Russian defense, and if any area will remain in Russian hands at the end of this war, it's the eastern-most portion of Ukraine. Milley is the top US general though, so what do I know

 

why is the Ukrainian foreign minister trying to lie to start WW3?

 

still up, no correction

 

This version of the results of ceasefire talks in March / April is laughably simplistic and black & white - it reads like straight Russian propaganda. If anything ignores everything that happened in history before a certain point in time it is this take on those talks.

 

Once again we’re talking about what is “valid/acceptable” sorta like when we were talkkng about Crimea’s annexation and its legality.

The validity of the reason does not matter to me as much as acknowledging the reason, whether one agrees with it or not. And that is, that Russia’s invasion is in response to western aggression towards its country and expansion to its front. While I can’t agree with their invasion, I cannot deny that the threat they face in the crosshairs of the US/West/NATO, is unreal, and the cause of the invasion.

 

There is little evidence that Russia was participating in these talks in good faith or in a serious way at that point in time and most evidence suggests the complete opposite is true.

 

"Ukraine has been a corrupt country, littered with Nazis and Nazi sympathizers, for decades."

This is akin to saying Russia is a country filled with drunken genocidal imperialists who love violence for violence's sake.

 

THe same reason Russian officials have lied about their reasons for starting the war? lol

 

I do not believe you would say the same about the US invading Mexico if China were buddying up with them in an aggressive move and "expansion to it's front". So yeah that's why I don't buy that excuse.

 

Well then there must be articles in the press about this too.

 

If this is how Russia and Russia-sympathizers characterize modern Ukraine then any peace talks or negotiations are complegely pointless. The only choice for Russia is to violently de-Nazify Ukraine with an invasion referred to as a special military operation and the only choice for Ukraine is to fight to the death to try to stop them. Diplomacy is utterly pointless.

 

what excuse.

 

if the US and Russia swapped their history of the past 100 or so years, than yeah i guess what i'm saying about Russia would apply to the US in alternate universe, Earth-619.

 

Don't you ever get tired of presenting false dilemmas? As I and many others have continually pointed out the situation is complex and nuanced, and it's important to understand it to help prevent the next conflict.

 

I agree that the situation is complex and nuanced. I think characterizing Ukraine as littered with Nazis is not only false but simplistic and unhelpful to any future possible diplomatic resolutions.

 

Nope....If they swapped history and US invaded Mexico because another "advisarial" country that was a global superpower was forming closer economic ties with them and we didn't like it....US would still be in the wrong to invade! The resulting war would still be the US's fault! No amount of history would change that or be a good reason to brush off what the US was doing in that war as "Well what about (Russia/China/Whoever)"

Also it's really only been the past 30 years because Russia was indeed a dominant super power for many years before that, and at least half of the 30 years since then have seen Russia spend its time and money to become a global colonial power once again.

 

i don't even know where to start here, tbh.

 

You can start by being as vehemently anti-war and anti-imperialist when it comes to talking about Russia's actions here as you are with almost literally everything else lol. I promise you that you don't need to diminish the awfulness of Russia's actions here simply because the US is also bad or because 30+ years ago Russia vaguely aligned itself with communism.