This is not a good assessment of the situation at all…
If American power was truly benign, it would be interested in maintaining Ukrainian neutrality as much as possible to prevent the disaster we have just seen, and simply allow the processes of technology and modernization to erode totalitarian institutions in Russia and, similarly, fought corruption in Ukraine… It would not weaponize the most backwards & corrupt country in Europe through re-energizing the Maidan, throwing a coup using literal Nazi militiamen, and put it on a crash course with Russia, causing it to lose a war abysmally that could have been settled by insisting on some sort of elections in Luhansk/Donetsk with international observers…
Polling shows that it could’ve likely resulted in just some autonomous region that would still be within Ukraine…
But look at we got: at least half a million dead Ukrainians and now it has been all but guaranteed that more than Luhansk & Donetsk will be ceded to Russia.
You sound like a progressive that would be arguing that the US needed to go into Vietnam to offset Russian & Chinese expansion in southeast Asia, and that the 2 million Vietnamese dead and tens of thousands of working class Americans dying are just these necessary side effects of us being the good guyz.
it would be interested in maintaining Ukrainian neutrality
News flash, Ukraine overwhelmingly want to align with the West. Russia has no business telling Ukraine to remain neutral or else… anymore than US has no business telling another whom to align or they will coup.
Everything else you said is repeating Russian propaganda that has no bearing in reality. Yanukovych reneged on the deal with the EU at the last minute angering Ukrainians leading to Maidan revolution. Nuland tapes are circumstantial at best. The UN itself said they found no evidence of Ukraine systematically committing genocide on Russian speakers (as a matter of fact it is Russia whom they found committing genocide on Ukrainians).
Pushing for isolationism and apathy is precisely what Putin wants as it would mean leaving Ukraine on its own and time for Moscow to recover. The narrative of squarely blaming Ukraine for all the deaths in spite of Russia was the one who invaded unprovoked is suspiciously becoming more common. Usually peace advocates implore both sides, not blaming only one side and the aggrieved one at that.
Edit: oh look, a two hour old account repeating Russian propaganda. Not suspicious at all.
I disagree - Yanukovych was elected on he basis that he would be close to Russia. He won the popular election at one point. Of course a significant amount of Ukrainians were pissed that he pulled out of the deal, but it was predictable that a pro-Russian leader would take steps to try to at least maintain a balance between the West and Russia…
Maybe it is even the case that Yanukovych was heavy-handed in scuttling the EU deal, but the crazy violence that happened at the Odessa trade hall and the sweeping to power of these cartoon character super nationalists in the most corrupt country in Europe seems like a fair enough reason for places like Crimea and E. Ukraine to want to return to Russia…
Obviously, I would agree with the assessment that some amount of Russian intelligence operations and propagandists were invested in forcing the issue, but I’ve also heard interviews with pro-Kiev Ukrainians from the East conceding that their own home town in Luhansk/Donetsk is mostly pro-Russian.
Pushing for isolationism and apathy is precisely what Putin wants as it would mean leaving Ukraine on its own and time for Moscow to recover. The narrative of squarely blaming Ukraine for all the deaths in spite of Russia was the one who invaded unprovoked is suspiciously becoming more common. Usually peace advocates implore both sides, not blaming only one side and the aggrieved one at that.
I actually blame the West for all the deaths. Someone at some point convinced Zelenskyy that he would have enough support to turn back a Russian invasion - something he should have been far more skeptical about - and the results are absolutely catastrophic.
I am always anti-war, and thus I am against diplomatic maneuvers that fail to de-escalate hostile situations and create more friction.
Does it suck that the Ukraine is in such a difficult position? Of course. But the answer to this is not putting them in the boxing ring with the Russian bear. The results have been devastating and predictable.
BTW… No, i do not support Putin at all. The path forward for Russia is the same path forward for all nations: increasing wealth and insuring its equitable distribution so that the average persons enjoys a high standard of living and can together exert pressure for accountability & transparency of government…
But complaining that Russia, a country with so many issues after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is undemocratic all the while our own nations see civil rights never actualized or even eroded and control by capitalist oligarchs is… rich.
We also set up Russia to be that way - remember the Harvard Boys.
“Some Russian intelligence” interference is an understatement. It was clear they agitated Russian-speakers. After all, the Russians invaded Crimea with “green men” only for Putin to admit months later they are Russian agents.
Imagine if the US lost the entire East Coast and being told to just give up retaking it instead of shedding more blood.
Russia lied they won’t invade and they did. Why should they be believed that they will uphold any truce or peace deal?
And thinking that globalisation will democratise Russia is wishing that China and Saudi Arabia will also be the same. People have thought about that to those countries but it hasn’t happened. Autocratic countries know how to insulate themselves from outside influence, precisely because they do not allow dissenting voices, especially from outside. They are autocratic after all.
A two hour old account parroting pro-Trump with Russian propaganda. You make an interesting spin I have to say.
Let’s even say that what you are saying is completely true - because it is, to some extent. Russia is not 100% well intentioned. I am not a Putinist by any stretch of the imagination…
What you are actually suggesting is that the Ukraine, the most corrupt & impoverished country in Europe at that moment, is being defended by the USA and NATO, because they are a bastion of liberty… and the USA, and NATO, who absolutely have not killed millions of people around the world exclusively to further their own geopolitical position and economic interests, who have absolutely never massacred actual progressives and leftists by the tens of thousands in places like Chile, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, are totally backing the Ukraine because they have the noblest of intentions in defending… :::: puts on Zelenskyy’s gravitas and accent ::: democracy and human rights.
Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t), it does not mean that the US and the Kiev regime are forces of democracy and progress. In fact, if history teaches us anything, the fact that the Kiev regime is working closely with the CIA and the USA means it is going to be a corrupt, backwards state… Or, as Zelenskyy stated it himself…
Imagine if the US lost the entire East Coast and being told to just give up retaking it instead of shedding more blood.
OK, but let’s imagine that the entire East Coast is ethnically majority English, and they speak only English, and traditionally vote for English candidates that advance closer relations with England… And let’s also imagine that they were actually assigned to be part of America by England herself in the middle of last century for administrative purposes when England used to rule the US…
… And then, after the English speaking, English descent President, who was elected popularly, with the East Coast as his predictable heartland of su pport, many English on the East Coast were completely pissed off. New York completely voted itself to be a part of England right away – of course, English officers and pollsters were there to facilitate this and the numbers were wonky, but a lot of people generally accepted it at the time because it was reasonably explicable…
… And, like, we’ve now been fighting a civil war without the English for 7 years… the rest of America has agreed to take in tons of military support and training from China, and is lining itself up to become a threat towards not just the East Coast, but of course, England, and the English alliance system more broadly…
And the East Coast would be joining a comparatively 2, 3x more wealthy and less corrupt state that has its best interests at heart by joining England, as opposed to feeling like the neglected, actualy despised part of America, which is a rapidly failing state ruled by a series of corrupt oligarchs… Not entirely unlike England, but [i]measurably worst in terms of standard of living, at least…![/i]
It’s pretty complicated, isn’t it?
And thinking that globalisation will democratise Russia is wishing that China and Saudi Arabia will also be the same. People have thought about that to those countries but it hasn’t happened. Autocratic countries know how to insulate themselves from outside influence, precisely because they do not allow dissenting voices, especially from outside. They are autocratic after all.
I said prosperity and not globalization for a reason, though… Globalization is a front for global capital.
I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades - I don’t think you’d dispute that, either. The only issue is that China has incorporated its emerging bourgeoisie into a more jingoistic, confrontational foreign policy outlook, IMO.
They are still just ruled by oligarchs like the West.
A two hour old account parroting pro-Trump with Russian propaganda. You make an interesting spin I have to say.
Yeah man I’m a freshman but I think I am cut out for the team.
You’re telling my assessment is not good when yours is really just…really bad.
Firstly, Yanukovych won by slim margin of 3% at 48% versus 45% to his opponent. He was hardly “popular”. Second, his administration was mired with corruption. The Wikipedia article sums it up quite nicely with good sources. Even Russian-speaking Donbas don’t like him.
Since you are pushing for the corruption narrative, the EU is way less corrupt and richer than Russia. The latter has 1/5th of the GDP of Italy. Russian-aligned countries are known for being dictators. Why would Ukraine then join Russian sphere of influence when the EU has better standard of living, more democratic and less corrupt? Looking at corruption perception index, Russia ranks near bottom as one of the most corrupt. Really? You’re telling Ukrainians to side with a more corrupt entity than the less so?
Let’s go back to the NATO narrative. The West knows fully that Ukraine is a red line for Russia. If the West really wants Ukraine to join NATO, they sure danced around it for decades. Recent declassified British communications showed the Blair administration rejects Ukraine joining the EU for said reasons. Kremlin sees this as Ukraine also joining NATO (also the EU wants Ukraine to be less corrupt and democratic). Because for Russia, it’s either Ukraine joins them or not at all in any capacity. Russia wants to carve their own sphere of influence. Russia have their own political philosophy of Eurasianism. Moreover, seeing a more prosperous neighbour could make Russians realise the bad situation they are in under Putin’s rule. Of course, any dictators would not want getting ideas for a better way of life as it would undermine their own rule.
And really, your argument about US East Coast joining England for being “more prosperous” could not be anymore less convincing. UK is less prosperous and not any more or less corrupt than the US (but they are both less corrupt than Russia nonetheless). The UK has GDP of $2.44 trillion while the US has $15.68 trillion (and for crying out loud, the state of New York alone has GDP of $2 trillion that could rival UK and could do well on its own). Italy that is 10% the size of Russia, has outsized more GDP than Russia. So you’re saying it is better to side with Russia on this despite all the metric?
As for the supposed democratic desire by Luhansk and Donbas to join Russia, you do realise that the referendum was a sham? Held at gunpoint during a conflict and with a low voter turnout? Even televised reporting from Russia showed they counted ballots as “yes” that are not even filled out! No nation recognise the “results” except for those beholden to Russia. There’s a reason as to why the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal and a sham and do not recognise the “secession” of eastern parts of Ukraine.
So, your claim that the West is supporting a corrupt regime is not only utter bs, but also spewing Russian propaganda, regardless of whether or not you claim to have no love for Putin. You could argue for any spin and yet you picked the worst talking points to stand one that could be easily refuted. You go for corruption spin and yet you’re implying for Ukraine to side with a country that is more corrupt, less democratic and less prosperous. For someone repeating leftist buzzwords like “bourgeoisie” and “capital”, you sure are contradicting yourself for tacitly supporting Putin as lesser evil and not the hyper-evil capitalist kleptocrat that he is by stating “Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t)”.
Really, you’re not fooling anyone. But I will give you credit, you sure make interesting spin.
I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades
More liberal, if you ignore the lack of civil liberties in those countries.
This is not a good assessment of the situation at all…
If American power was truly benign, it would be interested in maintaining Ukrainian neutrality as much as possible to prevent the disaster we have just seen, and simply allow the processes of technology and modernization to erode totalitarian institutions in Russia and, similarly, fought corruption in Ukraine… It would not weaponize the most backwards & corrupt country in Europe through re-energizing the Maidan, throwing a coup using literal Nazi militiamen, and put it on a crash course with Russia, causing it to lose a war abysmally that could have been settled by insisting on some sort of elections in Luhansk/Donetsk with international observers…
Polling shows that it could’ve likely resulted in just some autonomous region that would still be within Ukraine…
But look at we got: at least half a million dead Ukrainians and now it has been all but guaranteed that more than Luhansk & Donetsk will be ceded to Russia.
You sound like a progressive that would be arguing that the US needed to go into Vietnam to offset Russian & Chinese expansion in southeast Asia, and that the 2 million Vietnamese dead and tens of thousands of working class Americans dying are just these necessary side effects of us being the good guyz.
News flash, Ukraine overwhelmingly want to align with the West. Russia has no business telling Ukraine to remain neutral or else… anymore than US has no business telling another whom to align or they will coup.
Everything else you said is repeating Russian propaganda that has no bearing in reality. Yanukovych reneged on the deal with the EU at the last minute angering Ukrainians leading to Maidan revolution. Nuland tapes are circumstantial at best. The UN itself said they found no evidence of Ukraine systematically committing genocide on Russian speakers (as a matter of fact it is Russia whom they found committing genocide on Ukrainians).
Pushing for isolationism and apathy is precisely what Putin wants as it would mean leaving Ukraine on its own and time for Moscow to recover. The narrative of squarely blaming Ukraine for all the deaths in spite of Russia was the one who invaded unprovoked is suspiciously becoming more common. Usually peace advocates implore both sides, not blaming only one side and the aggrieved one at that.
Edit: oh look, a two hour old account repeating Russian propaganda. Not suspicious at all.
I disagree - Yanukovych was elected on he basis that he would be close to Russia. He won the popular election at one point. Of course a significant amount of Ukrainians were pissed that he pulled out of the deal, but it was predictable that a pro-Russian leader would take steps to try to at least maintain a balance between the West and Russia…
Maybe it is even the case that Yanukovych was heavy-handed in scuttling the EU deal, but the crazy violence that happened at the Odessa trade hall and the sweeping to power of these cartoon character super nationalists in the most corrupt country in Europe seems like a fair enough reason for places like Crimea and E. Ukraine to want to return to Russia…
Obviously, I would agree with the assessment that some amount of Russian intelligence operations and propagandists were invested in forcing the issue, but I’ve also heard interviews with pro-Kiev Ukrainians from the East conceding that their own home town in Luhansk/Donetsk is mostly pro-Russian.
I actually blame the West for all the deaths. Someone at some point convinced Zelenskyy that he would have enough support to turn back a Russian invasion - something he should have been far more skeptical about - and the results are absolutely catastrophic.
I am always anti-war, and thus I am against diplomatic maneuvers that fail to de-escalate hostile situations and create more friction.
Does it suck that the Ukraine is in such a difficult position? Of course. But the answer to this is not putting them in the boxing ring with the Russian bear. The results have been devastating and predictable.
BTW… No, i do not support Putin at all. The path forward for Russia is the same path forward for all nations: increasing wealth and insuring its equitable distribution so that the average persons enjoys a high standard of living and can together exert pressure for accountability & transparency of government…
But complaining that Russia, a country with so many issues after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is undemocratic all the while our own nations see civil rights never actualized or even eroded and control by capitalist oligarchs is… rich.
We also set up Russia to be that way - remember the Harvard Boys.
“Some Russian intelligence” interference is an understatement. It was clear they agitated Russian-speakers. After all, the Russians invaded Crimea with “green men” only for Putin to admit months later they are Russian agents.
Imagine if the US lost the entire East Coast and being told to just give up retaking it instead of shedding more blood.
Russia lied they won’t invade and they did. Why should they be believed that they will uphold any truce or peace deal?
And thinking that globalisation will democratise Russia is wishing that China and Saudi Arabia will also be the same. People have thought about that to those countries but it hasn’t happened. Autocratic countries know how to insulate themselves from outside influence, precisely because they do not allow dissenting voices, especially from outside. They are autocratic after all.
A two hour old account parroting pro-Trump with Russian propaganda. You make an interesting spin I have to say.
Let’s even say that what you are saying is completely true - because it is, to some extent. Russia is not 100% well intentioned. I am not a Putinist by any stretch of the imagination…
What you are actually suggesting is that the Ukraine, the most corrupt & impoverished country in Europe at that moment, is being defended by the USA and NATO, because they are a bastion of liberty… and the USA, and NATO, who absolutely have not killed millions of people around the world exclusively to further their own geopolitical position and economic interests, who have absolutely never massacred actual progressives and leftists by the tens of thousands in places like Chile, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, are totally backing the Ukraine because they have the noblest of intentions in defending… :::: puts on Zelenskyy’s gravitas and accent ::: democracy and human rights.
Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t), it does not mean that the US and the Kiev regime are forces of democracy and progress. In fact, if history teaches us anything, the fact that the Kiev regime is working closely with the CIA and the USA means it is going to be a corrupt, backwards state… Or, as Zelenskyy stated it himself…
Ukraine wants to be Big Israel.
OK, but let’s imagine that the entire East Coast is ethnically majority English, and they speak only English, and traditionally vote for English candidates that advance closer relations with England… And let’s also imagine that they were actually assigned to be part of America by England herself in the middle of last century for administrative purposes when England used to rule the US…
… And then, after the English speaking, English descent President, who was elected popularly, with the East Coast as his predictable heartland of su pport, many English on the East Coast were completely pissed off. New York completely voted itself to be a part of England right away – of course, English officers and pollsters were there to facilitate this and the numbers were wonky, but a lot of people generally accepted it at the time because it was reasonably explicable…
… And, like, we’ve now been fighting a civil war without the English for 7 years… the rest of America has agreed to take in tons of military support and training from China, and is lining itself up to become a threat towards not just the East Coast, but of course, England, and the English alliance system more broadly…
And the East Coast would be joining a comparatively 2, 3x more wealthy and less corrupt state that has its best interests at heart by joining England, as opposed to feeling like the neglected, actualy despised part of America, which is a rapidly failing state ruled by a series of corrupt oligarchs… Not entirely unlike England, but [i]measurably worst in terms of standard of living, at least…![/i]
It’s pretty complicated, isn’t it?
I said prosperity and not globalization for a reason, though… Globalization is a front for global capital.
I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades - I don’t think you’d dispute that, either. The only issue is that China has incorporated its emerging bourgeoisie into a more jingoistic, confrontational foreign policy outlook, IMO.
They are still just ruled by oligarchs like the West.
Yeah man I’m a freshman but I think I am cut out for the team.
You’re telling my assessment is not good when yours is really just…really bad.
Firstly, Yanukovych won by slim margin of 3% at 48% versus 45% to his opponent. He was hardly “popular”. Second, his administration was mired with corruption. The Wikipedia article sums it up quite nicely with good sources. Even Russian-speaking Donbas don’t like him.
Second, it is laughable you are pushing for the corruption narrative of Ukraine often repeated that serves Russian propaganda. What countries aren’t corrupt? Except there are more so that are corrupt. And Russia just happens to be way more corrupt than you wish to portray it to be. Most significantly, Ukraine wants to join the EU to be precise, but Putin sees EU admission as tantamount to joining NATO. They are two completely different things. Separate polling showed Ukraine don’t want to join NATO, until Russia agitated the Ukrainians prompting them to yearn to join NATO. Russian interference also made Ukraine want to join EU even more, and the same poll showed Russian-speaking Ukrainians do not feel neglected.
Since you are pushing for the corruption narrative, the EU is way less corrupt and richer than Russia. The latter has 1/5th of the GDP of Italy. Russian-aligned countries are known for being dictators. Why would Ukraine then join Russian sphere of influence when the EU has better standard of living, more democratic and less corrupt? Looking at corruption perception index, Russia ranks near bottom as one of the most corrupt. Really? You’re telling Ukrainians to side with a more corrupt entity than the less so?
Let’s go back to the NATO narrative. The West knows fully that Ukraine is a red line for Russia. If the West really wants Ukraine to join NATO, they sure danced around it for decades. Recent declassified British communications showed the Blair administration rejects Ukraine joining the EU for said reasons. Kremlin sees this as Ukraine also joining NATO (also the EU wants Ukraine to be less corrupt and democratic). Because for Russia, it’s either Ukraine joins them or not at all in any capacity. Russia wants to carve their own sphere of influence. Russia have their own political philosophy of Eurasianism. Moreover, seeing a more prosperous neighbour could make Russians realise the bad situation they are in under Putin’s rule. Of course, any dictators would not want getting ideas for a better way of life as it would undermine their own rule.
And really, your argument about US East Coast joining England for being “more prosperous” could not be anymore less convincing. UK is less prosperous and not any more or less corrupt than the US (but they are both less corrupt than Russia nonetheless). The UK has GDP of $2.44 trillion while the US has $15.68 trillion (and for crying out loud, the state of New York alone has GDP of $2 trillion that could rival UK and could do well on its own). Italy that is 10% the size of Russia, has outsized more GDP than Russia. So you’re saying it is better to side with Russia on this despite all the metric?
As for the supposed democratic desire by Luhansk and Donbas to join Russia, you do realise that the referendum was a sham? Held at gunpoint during a conflict and with a low voter turnout? Even televised reporting from Russia showed they counted ballots as “yes” that are not even filled out! No nation recognise the “results” except for those beholden to Russia. There’s a reason as to why the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal and a sham and do not recognise the “secession” of eastern parts of Ukraine.
So, your claim that the West is supporting a corrupt regime is not only utter bs, but also spewing Russian propaganda, regardless of whether or not you claim to have no love for Putin. You could argue for any spin and yet you picked the worst talking points to stand one that could be easily refuted. You go for corruption spin and yet you’re implying for Ukraine to side with a country that is more corrupt, less democratic and less prosperous. For someone repeating leftist buzzwords like “bourgeoisie” and “capital”, you sure are contradicting yourself for tacitly supporting Putin as lesser evil and not the hyper-evil capitalist kleptocrat that he is by stating “Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t)”.
Really, you’re not fooling anyone. But I will give you credit, you sure make interesting spin.
More liberal, if you ignore the lack of civil liberties in those countries.